User talk:Vaticidalprophet/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Writer's Barnstar
For your work on Prehistoric religion — a topic that is as important as it is difficult to study. To write a comprehensive and high quality article on something that complex is a laudable accomplishment. — The Most Comfortable Chair 10:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, The Most Comfortable Chair! I still have all sorts of thoughts on that article and others like it, but I'm proud of what I could do. "Perhaps, one day, I will rise even higher." Vaticidalprophet 13:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Elisabeth Geleerd[edit]

On 7 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Elisabeth Geleerd, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Elisabeth Geleerd became one of the most influential American psychoanalysts of her time while chronically ill and raising a family? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elisabeth Geleerd. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Elisabeth Geleerd), 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) 00:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion tag on my first article.[edit]

Sir, My article is important because Profound Writers is a global prominent writing community that enhances the writing skills of budding writers free of cost. The community also makes them better them what they wrote before by providing information about the grammatical mistakes. I am one of the members of this community and the work that is done is not even expected from anyone. The Founder of this community Mr Randhir wants to make it a company in future. If the information is not defined I will edit it and the full information was not provided because then it will hence become a promotion and I am not here to do promotion I just want to give information about the community. I will request you to remove that tag. Thank you Cruxien priya (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cruxien priya, you fundamentally misunderstand what Wikipedia is. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to give people information about up-and-coming service-offering communities that may or may not become companies in the future; it is to create archives of things that have happened and were considered important enough when they did to be covered by other news, books, and indeed print encyclopedias. Wikipedia is not like social media platforms or SEO tools. It is much more oriented to the past than the future; dead people are more likely to have articles than living ones, major companies articles than upcoming ones. I'd estimate that even if your company is successful, it'd be about 5-15 years before a Wikipedia article is indicated -- that's how strict we are on only allowing articles for the most widely recognized companies. Vaticidalprophet 08:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Konstantin Kalser[edit]

On 7 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Konstantin Kalser, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that film producer Konstantin Kalser, who won an Oscar for his 1956 short film Crashing the Water Barrier, later admitted that the film was an advertisement for an oil company? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Konstantin Kalser. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Konstantin Kalser), 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) 12:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nutria[edit]

That had me temporarily forgetting this is not Facebook and reaching for the laugh button. Only to find my only option was [Thank] which you will not be receiving! Invasive Spices (talk) 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It happens :D Hatnotes are fiddly and the preview button gets thrown off on long articles. Glad I could get a laugh in! Vaticidalprophet 20:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bots Newsletter, December 2021[edit]

Bots Newsletter, December 2021
BRFA activity by month

Welcome to the eighth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things bot. Maintainers disappeared to parts unknown... bots awakening from the slumber of æons... hundreds of thousands of short descriptions... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots.

Our last issue was in August 2019, so there's quite a bit of catching up to do. Due to the vast quantity of things that have happened, the next few issues will only cover a few months at a time. This month, we'll go from September 2019 through the end of the year. I won't bore you with further introductions — instead, I'll bore you with a newsletter about bots.

Overall

  • Between September and December 2019, there were 33 BRFAs. Of these, Green checkmarkY 25 were approved, and 8 were unsuccessful (Dark red X symbolN2 3 denied, Blue question mark? 3 withdrawn, and Expired 2 expired).

September 2019

Look! It's moving. It's alive. It's alive... It's alive, it's moving, it's alive, it's alive, it's alive, it's alive, IT'S ALIVE!
  • Green checkmarkY Monkbot 16, DannyS712 bot 60, Ahechtbot 6, PearBOT 3, Qbugbot 3 · Dark red X symbolN2 DannyS712 bot 5, PkbwcgsBot 24 · Blue question mark? DannyS712 bot 61, TheSandBot 4
  • TParis goes away, UTRSBot goes kaput: Beeblebrox noted that the bot for maintaining on-wiki records of UTRS appeals stopped working a while ago. TParis, the semi-retired user who had previously run it, said they were "unlikely to return to actively editing Wikipedia", and the bot had been vanquished by trolls submitting bogus UTRS requests on behalf of real blocked users. While OAuth was a potential fix, neither maintainer had time to implement it. TParis offered to access to the UTRS WMFLabs account to any admin identified with the WMF: "I miss you guys a whole lot [...] but I've also moved on with my life. Good luck, let me know how I can help". Ultimately, SQL ended up in charge. Some progress was made, and the bot continued to work another couple months — but as of press time, UTRSBot has not edited since November 2019.
  • Article-measuring contest resumed: The list of Wikipedians by article count, which had lain dead for several years, was triumphantly resurrected by GreenC following a bot request.

October 2019

November 2019

Now you're thinking with portals.

December 2019

In the next issue of Bots Newsletter:
What's next for our intrepid band of coders, maintainers and approvers?

  • What happens when two bots want to clerk the same page?
  • What happens when an adminbot goes hog wild?
  • Will reFill ever get fixed?
  • What's up with ListeriaBot, anyway?
  • Python 3.4 deprecation? In my PyWikiBot? (It's more likely than you think!)

These questions will be answered — and new questions raised — by the January 2022 Bots Newsletter. Tune in, or miss out!

Signing off... jp×g 04:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

A barnstar for you! 2[edit]

The Barnstar of Diligence
Only a few, are as diligent and consistent when carrying out the tasks and duties they sign up for as you do. The community is indeed grateful for your services. Keep up the good work mate. Celestina007 (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, Celestina007 -- and it's good to see you again! I've been less active for a while, but I've gotten back in, and I like seeing you around. Vaticidalprophet 18:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, I appreciate the kind words mate, I myself have been preoccupied of a late with real life work. I also like seeing you around, I literally love our intellectual stimulating discussions pertaining to policy. Once more, thank you for your diligence. Celestina007 (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Elisabeth Geleerd[edit]

The article Elisabeth Geleerd you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Elisabeth Geleerd 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 Urve -- Urve (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia[edit]

Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, BOZ! To you as well :) Vaticidalprophet 23:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Весела Коледа!

Hello, Vaticidalprophet! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Happy Holidays[edit]

Happy Holidays
Happy holidays Vaticidal, and happy new year! DirkJandeGeer (щи) 23:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining the unexplained[edit]

Greetings Vaticidalprophet. After seeing your reversion of my edit and reading the edit summary,[1] I felt that I should explain to allay the concerns you may have. Firstly, the reversion was not (accidental?), but the content removal, which you restored, was unintentional. It is common "good practice", at wp:rm/tr (when removing requests that otherwise empty the page) to restore the page's default preload by clicking the button labeled "Clear & reset form", located just above the "Technical requests" header. That is what I did after completing the final remaining requests on the page but the changes that added the new links to the page had never been updated to change the preload link, so it loaded the version without the new links. I corrected that, so it won't happen again and I'll try to ensure that any new changes are not done without updating the permalink too. With that, I bid thee adieu and wish you well.--John Cline (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, John Cline -- I thought it might be something like that. Glad to see it fixed, and hope you're well! Vaticidalprophet 04:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication[edit]

The article Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication 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:Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022[edit]

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive:
  • On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.

Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages.

--Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Happy New Year, Vaticidalprophet![edit]

Happy New Year!

Vaticidalprophet,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

ITN recognition for Paul B. Kidd[edit]

On 2 January 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Paul B. Kidd, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Age of death vandal[edit]

Hi, the User:107.115.207.53 you reported is the same as IP 184.58.230.245. This user is obsessed about ambiguous ages of death to an inane degree, going back to 2019. As the original IP (with the most edits, amongst others) has garnered a two year block, you may bring it up in future should you need to report them again. Seloloving (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Seloloving! That article has attracted an odd number of birth/death date obsessed IPs -- presumably different people given they have different obsessions and geolocate to different continents, but that's a new one who I'll keep in mind. Will bring it up if it happens. Vaticidalprophet 03:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am presuming it's the same person on a proxy, but will continue the monitoring the situation also. Do ping me if you ever encounter them again. Cheers. Seloloving (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a second pattern (geolocating to Sydney and starting before his death) of someone changing the birth year to 1942. I thought at first it could be possible, but then all the obits said 76, everything on auth control said 1945, etc., so I'm pretty sure it's just birth date vandalism. The guy in Sydney is on a large rangeblock now, but it doesn't seem to catch all of it (IPs outside that range have made the same edits) and the existing block already has noticeable collateral. Vaticidalprophet 06:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication[edit]

The article Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup![edit]

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup![edit]

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth, I think you accidentally sent out the MMS twice? Vaticidalprophet 15:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I did. Nothing happened after the first attempt, so quarter of an hour later, I tried again! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, yeah -- it happens. I ended up running around on talk pages after sending my last MMS because I'd accidentally left a HTML tag open :) Vaticidalprophet 20:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Thanks for your warm and supportive welcome!

589q (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kitten, 589q! I completely understand what you say about forgetting with edit summaries -- like I said, it was something I did a lot too when I was just starting out. If you want, under your Preferences tab there's an option to give yourself a reminder popup if you forget to leave an edit summary, under the "Editing" tab. (And as for the last note on your user page -- you'd be surprised what articles we're still missing!) Vaticidalprophet 13:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review Christianization of the Roman Empire[edit]

Going one by one re-checking every reference in the article is going to take me a month. :-( The nomination needs to be put on hold - temporarily - until I have verified every one. Thank you for your willingness to do this review. I think you are the only one who can put this on hold, so if you would go ahead and do that, I would greatly appreciate it. I hope we get to work together in the future. I was looking forward to getting to know you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Jenhawk777 -- I'm sure we'll get to know each other soon. Will hold until further notice. Vaticidalprophet 13:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. I'm sorry about this. Too much 2 AM work apparently.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I will be ready for you within the next couple of days or whenever you have time to return. I have just about killed myself on this one. I've gone over the entire article and am finishing up reviewing and re-reviewing the last sections. Shew! I did find a few problems, but not many thank the stars above, and mostly removed quotes per Gog the Mild's recommendation. I made everything that I could shorter. Since you don't take pings I hope you get this! Thank you for waiting on me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
​ Have got this! Doing a few reviews at once, but will endeavour to make a start on the first couple sections ASAP. Vaticidalprophet 17:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are wonderful and amazing and I can't thank you enough! As far as I am concerned you can take whatever time you need. It won't automatically fail if we don't restart within a week will it? Who decides that anyway?! Do you know? I have no idea!Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, don't worry -- there's no formal timeframe :) (There's one ongoing review from July, if you look at the WP:GAN list, but I certainly won't hold you up for that long...) I've both waited a while for comments and left people waiting a while myself, so I completely understand the vagaries of timeframes here. Vaticidalprophet 17:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have done those things suggested. Anxiously waiting for more! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is the computer? Any sign of returning soon? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Getting better :) I'm triaging my open reviews right now, I should get to you in a few days at most. Vaticidalprophet 23:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Haven't found photos this good on the free internet yet :D

Vati - "The Man Behind the Madness"

Dracophyllum 02:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just can't anymore[edit]

We talked about people arguing over infoboxs without improving the page.... what if I argued about them having already improved the page? :) (Talk:Guido of Arezzo#Infobox)... I was so close to quitting this week after I told people irl what I do here and they all gave me a "for free?"—this situation is making it so much more tempting. But the sad part is that this place gets addicting, and I will probably not quit, despite how miserable it might make me. Aza24 (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing about infoboxes on an improved page is an improvement :) As you know -- and as is still in the unarchived conversations on this talk -- I've gone through the whole "what the hell am I doing here?" myself. (And god, the "do they pay you?" comments. Although it looks good on a writer's resume.) I completely understand coming to any one of the conclusions people come to, from "it's the best invention humanity's ever managed" to "it's a nightmare and WP:HTD is necessary for the sanctity of society itself". I really appreciate your presence here, but I've been through the process of detaching and I know why people do it. Still, I'd like to see you around. Vaticidalprophet 19:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It really would like good on a resume—I'm pretty sure Dunkleosteus77 said that they linked their WP profile in a few of them! I am afraid of bringing up the infobox situation and the CM project page... those kinds of disputes bring up bad memories for everyone and quite a few lost friendships, plus I've tried so hard to avoid them. BTW, do you think my userpage actually makes a point or is a bit too ranty? I am afraid there is some irony in talking about how bad an article is, talking about how people should be bold to improve it, but then I have failed to be bold on said article. I tried to make it clear that my big article right now is the history of music but eh... Aza24 (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm...sort-of a writer by profession, but too early career to say I have a profession, but close enough. It really does work. (But sometimes I think the laws of reality work differently for me with these things, so who knows :) ) I'm unsurprised it works for Dunkleosteus -- their creations are really impressive. In the object case, that article shouldn't have an infobox right now because of the status quo ante function of NOCONSENSUS; I happen to be pretty gung-ho about boxen for most biographies, but as you note the sensitivity of the topic means I don't really get into this much. I do find myself sometimes marvelling at the things that supposedly need boxen (WikiProject Archaeology has a hardcoded "needs infobox" in its assessments, and I've idly wondered what infobox you could even use on Prehistoric religion). As for the userpage -- I like it. I recall hitting the 'thanks' button when I saw it pop up on my watchlist. It doesn't feel ranty, but then I'm a ranter myself. TCC is running again in February-March; I already know what my next article will be, and it's another one where I just have to marvel that people have left it in the state they've left it in. Vaticidalprophet 19:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking about the Symphony article, or perhaps one of the classical periods, like the unbelivably awful Romantic music one, for the TCC. I am not sure how secretive you want your choice to be but I am curious....
The turmoil of past infobox conversations has made me rather unsure; I have it for Cai Lun, but not Orlando Gibbons, for example. I do think in some ways it is an older generation's perspective against a younger one, especially in terms of over-simplifying & trivia vs quick & direct information. The awkward thing is, it feels almost inevitable that all biographical articles will get an infobox at some point, at least, whenever large RFCS are held now, the popular consensus seems always pro—(Talk:Stanley Kubrick#RFC: Infobox or not) for example. Again though, I should like to not find myself in such conversations, regardless of the supposed "inevitability". Aza24 (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Romantic music is not good, and Quarter Million Award pageviews...I was peripherally aware of the Kubrick RfC. It's an interesting new chapter. I do wonder if it's a herald of inevitable boxen in all the box-lacking FA bios. There's a perennially complicated issue at the intersections of article quality and editor retention. While I think boxen are in a void a good thing for all biographies to have, I don't think they're worth the cost in lost editors who would be net improvements for the project but leave -- or indeed, past-tense left -- over such a push. I know this page has a couple watchers who were around for the Infobox Wars I joined well after the ceasefire of; it's not a wound I'd like to reopen, from all I hear of it. I'm planning on revamping Succubus this TCC; it's Vital 5, full Million, and so bad. Vaticidalprophet 20:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like an interesting and valuable use of time! I agree that loosing editors over info boxes, especially big content creators, is by-far the most devastating consequence. Aza24 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prehistoric religion
The Venus of Laussel, a stone relief of a seated woman
RegionAfro-Eurasia
Originc. 50000 BCE
Europe
Defunctc. 1200 BCE (Europe)
Ask and you shall receive :) Elli (talk | contribs) 20:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANI#Siteban for Elli /s Vaticidalprophet 20:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fun fact: {{Infobox religion}} is an alias for {{Infobox Christian denomination}} and is used on articles which aren't Christian denominations at all, such as Judaism. Don't ask me why. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just like how CE/BCE is an alias for AD/BC >:) — kidding of course, perhaps that's an even worse can of worms than infoboxes. Aza24 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Were either of you watching the Autodidact1 mess at all? (While that ANI report was justified in the sense AD1's editing was disruptive, it's also a gruesomely illustrative example of how the "irascible/incivil repeatedly-sanctioned editor" concept is a self-fulfilling prophecy by way of people being repeatedly dragged to noticeboards for things they were barely involved in.) There was some truly bizarre MOS:ERA posturing involved there. Can of worms, indeed. Vaticidalprophet 23:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Copy-editing is not a crusade against the vulgar forces of darkness this is why I'm a Wikipedian. You could say our drama is pointless, but it's about the very idea of communication itself! Elli (talk | contribs) 23:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration case opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You may unsubscribe from further updates by removing your name from the case notification list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence at "Skepticism and coordinated editing"[edit]

Without commenting on anything else, the phrase and quite ironically for soi-disant skeptics in your evidence is a little tonally distracting and removing it would probably strengthen the whole thing a little. This message is sent in my capacity as a regular editor, not as an admin/arb, and doesn't (necessarily) reflect the views of other arbs/clerks. Thanks! Enterprisey (talk!) 22:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair's fair, I'll take another look...It was the part of that whole mess that shocked me most, and I feel like there must be some way of expressing the whole "the behaviour demonstrated there is at odds with the virtues of skepticism" thing, but it's a snarkier expression than possibly warranted. I don't want to lose the idea itself, but it's a tricky thing to present in a way that doesn't come across as such. Vaticidalprophet 22:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution and G12[edit]

I saw your statement here and didn't want to clog up WT:DYK, given that the conversation had gone stale. Surely the solution to a lack of attribution is to provide attribution? G12 is only for where there is "no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license". There is a compatible free license, and permission was already provided when an edit was made (as shown by the statement just before the "Publish changes" box: "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.") This seemed to me like an out-of-policy G12. Sdrqaz (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a 'complicated' one. I felt in this case given the unique circumstances -- that a troll, possibly reasonably definable as an LTA given the apparent persistence of the behaviour, was mainspacing someone's unfinished drafts against her explicit wishes otherwise -- that attribution would insufficiently resolve the issue. Call it a WP:DENY invocation. Vaticidalprophet 20:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it was "complicated". There's certainly a conduct issue, but the justification of a deletion outside of policy with an essay is discomforting (yes, I know IAR exists). Moving someone's drafts into the mainspace without that user's "permission", although a breach of etiquette, is not an issue that requires rectification with G12. History merges can be done, and should have been done. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is ultimately a disagreement on the meaning of IAR, although there's a rant in me somewhere about the meaning of IAR. It's not IMO something that's 'invoked' per se as an idea carried around with you as you go; the special case in every rule, the human behind the keyboard, the article better written one way and not another. I don't think, if someone is freaked out because she's been on the receiving end of draft-hijacking several times from a long-term bad actor who is about to put the consequences of it on the main page, that "we can histmerge it" is the best of all available options. Vaticidalprophet 22:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the desired endpoint is the removal of the "new" article from the mainspace, why not a histmerge-and-userfication or a straight draftification-and-redirection? If there's a policy-compliant way to accomplish effectively the same result, IAR doesn't really apply. My problem with not invoking IAR explicitly (and plastering it with something that is ostensibly policy-compliant) is that it doesn't aid those reviewing the action and isn't transparent and leads to misunderstandings where someone believes it is appropriate for all situations – though this doesn't apply to a Streisand situation where safeguarding is important. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Just for your information, following CW request for ban cancellation, I wasn't able to join the discussion. But I would like to add to the record CW interaction with me and know the possible avenues. Yug (talk) 🐲 17:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Explanations[edit]

Maybe, you have some explanation to what I described in this thread? This is deserving of a sanction in itself, if I choose to proceed to AE. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • (talk page watcher) @TrangaBellam: How does it impress[] a positive view of Hamilton-Parker upon a reader to say that Hamilton-Parker incorrectly predicted who would win the 2020 election? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mea culpa - I got this horribly wrong and offer my sincere apologies. I was removing all my posts when you pinged me. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Well I'm just glad this wasn't the alternative, which is that I'd been transported to an alternate universe where Trump won a second term. /lh -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I kept on reading the line as "Donald Trump would win lose a second term". I guess I will blame the monotony of grading graduate assignments.
      Btw, Vaticidalprophet, you seem to be a very good editor. Once again, I offer my unconditional apologies. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, that's a bit of a dramatic thing to wake up to :) I'm glad we could get that sorted, and I accept your apology! Arb cases can make emotions run high, and I get that it's a tricky time for people. (Unrelatedly, trying to edit on a phone has intensified my respect for Cullen for somehow managing to do this every day.) Vaticidalprophet 21:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes[edit]

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

  • Senkaku islands
  • Waldorf education
  • Ancient Egyptian race controversy
  • Scientology
  • Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

  • India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
  • Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes[edit]

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

  • Senkaku islands
  • Waldorf education
  • Ancient Egyptian race controversy
  • Scientology
  • Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

  • India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
  • Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bots Newsletter, January 2022[edit]

Bots Newsletter, January 2022
BRFA activity by month

Welcome to the ninth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things bot. Vicious bot-on-bot edit warring... superseded tasks... policy proposals... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots.

After a long hiatus between August 2019 and December 2021, there's quite a bit of ground to cover. Due to the vastness, I decided in December to split the coverage up into a few installments that covered six months each. Some people thought this was a good idea, since covering an entire year in a single issue would make it unmanageably large. Others thought this was stupid, since they were getting talk page messages about crap from almost three years ago. Ultimately, the question of whether each issue covers six months or a year is only relevant for a couple more of them, and then the problem will be behind us forever.

Of course, you can also look on the bright side – we are making progress, and this issue will only be about crap from almost two years ago. Today we will pick up where we left off in December, and go through the first half of 2020.

Overall
In the first half of 2020, there were 71 BRFAs. Of these, Green checkmarkY 59 were approved, and 12 were unsuccessful (with Dark red X symbolN2 8 denied, Blue question mark? 2 withdrawn, and Expired 2 expired).

January 2020

A python
A python
A python
0.4 pythons
Yeah, you're not gonna be able to get away with this anymore.

February 2020

Speaking of WikiProject Molecular Biology, Listeria went wild in February

March 2020

April 2020

Listeria being examined

Issues and enquiries are typically expected to be handled on the English Wikipedia. Pages reachable via unified login, like a talk page at Commons or at Italian Wikipedia could also be acceptable [...] External sites like Phabricator or GitHub (which require separate registration or do not allow for IP comments) and email (which can compromise anonymity) can supplement on-wiki communication, but do not replace it.

May 2020

We heard you like bots, so we made a bot that reports the status of your bots, so now you can use bots while you use bots

June 2020

A partial block averted at the eleventh hour for the robot that makes Legos

Conclusion

  • What's next for our intrepid band of coders, maintainers and approvers?
  • Will Citation bot ever be set free to roam the project?
  • What's the deal with all those book links that InternetArchiveBot is adding to articles?
  • Should we keep using Gerrit for MediaWiki?
  • What if we had a day for bots to make cosmetic edits?

These questions will be answered — and new questions raised — by the February 2022 Bots Newsletter. Tune in, or miss out!

Signing off... jp×g 23:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

A kitten for you![edit]

Thanks for your detailed review of Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany!

(t · c) buidhe 04:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Collins sppedily deletion because of unambiguous advertising or promotion[edit]

Besides being a global entrepreneur Sarah Collins is a philanthropist and humanitarian. This is what drew me to creating an article about her. She has had an illustrious career and knowing that I had to be careful for the article not to be seen as being promotional I went out of my way to ensure that I chose my words carefully. Please guide me as to what you find 'unambiguous advertising' and I will change it. It would be a pity not to have an article on such an amazing woman! FuBiuC (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For admin TPSes, the article was at Sarah Collins (Global Entrepreneur) if you'd like to read it. I do not think there will be much disagreement on the merits of my G11 tag.

Back to FuBiuC, I recognize the point you're making -- this is evidently someone you want to make an article on (although our policy on this matter means it'd be a good idea to mention now if you're being paid to write it or if you have any real-life connection with Collins), and she might pass Wikipedia's notability standards (I didn't look too deep). The tricky thing about rewrite suggestions is that the deletion tag I placed inherently means an article is entirely unambiguous advertising -- that is, there aren't minor notes that would have to be changed, but the entire article from scratch.

A lot of people who've learned writing from ad copy have trouble adapting to Wikipedia's preferred valence. The way to write a Wikipedia article, which is patterned off encyclopedias, is fundamentally different from advertorial writing. (For instance, there is essentially no context where the word "visionary" should appear in a Wikipedia article.) The best advice I can give you is to study high-quality biographical articles (WP:Featured articles and WP:Good articles can provide examples) and see what's fundamentally different about those to the one you wrote. Vaticidalprophet 03:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Chinese New Year![edit]

恭喜发财！

Happy Chinese New Year!

🐯🐯🐯 — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Sherif[edit]

Hi Vaticidalprophet. Wanted to ask about your close at Talk:Mohamed Sherif (footballer, born 1996). While there were three !votes proposing the alternative selected, the only policy-based arguments were given in full support of the move. The !votes opposing the move failed to express any reason why the primary topic would not be moved to the base name. The alternative proposal you instead chose had zero policy arguments, or indeed any arguments in its favor made at all. Would you consider re-closing as full support, or reversing for an admin closure if you would feel more comfortable?--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well the other should probably have been no consensus rather than not moved with an understanding that the 1st move can be requested at any time. I don't see the point in reversing the close as there was clear consensus that the 1993 one was not primary but no clear consensus on if the 1996 one is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But there was a clear consensus -- every single valid !vote that provided any policy argument supported in full. Which of the !votes in opposition provided a policy-based reason -- or hell, any reason -- why the subject that overwhelmingly meets primary topic guidelines is not the primary topic?--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Crouch, Swale Even if that was the case, the fact you are mentioning "no consensus" means the closure was a case of WP:BADNAC. I'd suggest an admin to handle this closure, as whatever happened here isn't appropriate. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) No comment on the closure itself, but the claim of BADNAC is off base: per WP:RMNAC, "NACs are not discouraged for requested moves...the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure...any experienced and uninvolved editor in good standing may close any RM debate". RMs are regularly closed by non-admins even in controversial cases—I've done a fair share of them myself. The social norms for non-admin closures at RM are quite different than they are at, for instance, AfD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you were implying otherwise, but I just want to be totally clear that the request to reconsider the move is based purely on the discussion and consensus, not about the adminship or lack thereof of the closer.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to be clear that I don't think Vaticidalprophet is in any way personally problematic as a non admin closer or anything! Just that I don't believe this closure was the correct gauge of the discussion's consensus.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful, I just woke up to 12 talk page edits. Broadly, my close here came from having significant experience both with closing sports RMs specifically, and participating in ptopic-based RMs in general. It's very rare for a ptopic argument to win out when the basis is recent success specifically. On an ideological level, I actually disagree with this -- if readers are clearly going for a given article, I do not believe we should stick them to a different one because "long-term significance" means we might need to have another RM in five years although one of my TPSes with the opposite view will surely be around to rant that the ptopic for "Mars" isn't the planet soon -- but it's established RM practice. The !voters who supported the alternative proposal are the single three most experienced people with sports RMs, and I considered their votes accordingly; all three of them are very rarely wrong. That said, sure, I'll reverse it. They'll probably complain at me instead, but I find it best to wash my hands of any challenged close for stress-management purposes. My record with the recloses being the same one I went for is excellent, but the stress isn't worth it. Vaticidalprophet 01:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the admin close comments, I have never seen an admin close at RM, not even of the most controversial discussions. There are two admins who can in any sense be described as "working RM"; one works RM/TR and the other maintains the bot. It's not a venue with working admins. Perhaps it should be, but it's not. BADNAC is 1. an essay 2. about AfD 3. that has anti-consensus and has been shot down any time attempts have been made to make it any higher than it is. Vaticidalprophet 01:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pings[edit]

So, for me, I try to take a clue from what the other person is doing. If they don't ping me, I don't ping them when I respond. And vice versa. I actually do prefer to be pinged, so before I could subscribe to a discussion I'd often say 'ping on reply' if the other person hadn't pinged me in their previous response. It almost never feels aggressive to me. I think there'd have to be other things that were making it feel aggressive, like multiple pings in a row or something that made it feel like, "Hey! I'm talking to you! Don't just ignore me!" And actually sometimes not being pinged is annoying if the person then claims "You stopped responding" or something. :) valereee (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee (per preference): It's tricky on a sociological level because of just how strongly different people's opinions are on the matter, yeah. I try to remember which one a given person has stated, which usually means reminding myself to ping someone, because "likes pings" seems somewhat more common than "dislikes pings". The aggressiveness is mostly in the reading, so to speak; disagreements and flat-fallen jokes and well-intentioned criticisms get magnified. Multiple pings worsen it -- the reason I eventually turned them off completely was getting three pings in under an hour by someone I actively go out of my way to avoid. Vaticidalprophet 02:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can turn off pings from specific users with the Mute This User button? valereee (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christianization[edit]

So, remember when I said I knew there were people having trouble letting go of the old models? Now you know what I was talking about. I did say this was controversial - but that controversy is here on WP more than it is amongst the scholars. That's important I think.

I hope you really are following along. I have effectively addressed, with sources, every objection they made. Still, I have made some adjustments to the text in a good faith effort to respond to their concerns. They seem to have misunderstood a good bit, so clarification seemed necessary. I'm glad of that at any rate. But comments like a request for practical causes indicate they didn't read the parts of the article they are discussing. It's funny too that buidhe wants less of them and Richard wants more. My changes have not substantively altered anything already in the article, however, if Richard decides to start making BOLD edits, that will affect stability. So we will have to wait and see what he does. I'm sorry, but not surprised. How long can he hold this up until you decide to fail it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following, but I have to say: it's a lot of very long, very dense arguments. I do follow them, though.

re. stability...I'm kind of following your lead for the moment. You don't seem to want to withdraw, so I haven't withdrawn it. If you do, I'd do so. I'm keeping an eye on the debate and seeing if there's a point I think the stability has crossed over, and I don't think it's done so yet. Vaticidalprophet 01:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Bless you. Thank you. I do not want to withdraw. I have worked with both these people before - religion and classicism are both relatively small groups, and we tend to run into each other a great deal. We have always worked well together, and I regularly take their suggestions. We are generally able to compromise, reach consensus and respect each other. They are both great editors. They are well intentioned and dependably act in good faith, but in this case, they are simply wrong. So far, these are opinions and feelings which I expected, and these opinions are without WP policy support or sources to back them up. Buidhe referred to WP standards concerning length to support her suggestion of splitting, but all Wikipedia:Article size actually says is that the length of this article is close to the attention span of most readers. It also says that "Readability is a key criterion", so I say we focus on that. I think you are fully capable of ensuring that. Not being part of this field of study actually aids you in that particular pursuit. They have not challenged my sources. They know this is the current state of scholarship. Nothing they have said - so far - presents any actual challenges to the article itself. So, if you are still willing and able to persevere through all of this, then yes, I do want to continue. Thank you so much. I just keep wanting to say it, thank you. Thank you thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Activity has apparently suspended. They made no alterations to the article. Avilich combined two sections on legislation and sacrifice into one and improved it. I love him. That's all that's happened since you left. Please come back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a read-through tonight (local time) or tomorrow :) Vaticidalprophet 07:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vaticidal This review has been dragging on for just over 5 weeks now. I'm sorry to nag, but we are not making much progress. BTW, I think I fixed the phone problem. I would sure like to get on with this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
is there anything you need from me, anything at all that I can do, or say that would encourage or help you in any way? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenhawk and TPSes. I just realized I haven't edited in four days. I'm not in a good place right now (nothing Wikipedia-related), and I don't know when I will be, so I'm not sure I'll be able to complete my reviews (or...do much of anything in the interim). Is there anyone here who's able to pick up a couple of half-done GANs? Vaticidalprophet 06:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I will go relist it. Stay in touch. I hope things get better for you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What the??[edit]

What the blankety blank happened to your user page? I loved it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed :( Aza24 (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) - Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_4#Template:Db-g0. Hog Farm Talk 07:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion is just pathetic. Of all the things on WP that need attention, this wasn't one. Good grief! I'm sorry dearheart. People just can't stay out of other people's business. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, us Wikipedians are mindless droids who churn out content to please the masses. No social networking, humor, or anything but encyclopedic contributions allowed! Humans, after all, are completely functional under such expectations! Yay Wikipedia! Aza24 (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vaticidalprophet, for what it's worth, I read what you wrote in the TfD discussion. Though yes, I did first see the template on your page, it was never my intent to single out any specific editor when I nominated the template. My problem was with the template itself, not with the editors using the template. But as seen above, the comments in the section validate why I believe Wikipedia can be toxic at times: Editors will just assume what other editors are doing without reaching out to the source itself. I left this site for over a year due to the toxicity and drama that somehow Wikipedia tends to attract to itself at times, but I'm not going to tangent on that further. (Basically, anyone who just assumes my intentions without asking me directly can kiss my ass.) My point is this; right before I did what I did to my user page, I was considering undoing the edit you did to your user page and saying something like "screw what anyone thinks of your user page; it's your userpage and you should be excited to show off what you have on there!", but I chose to refrain since I didn't know how that would have been taken. Anyways, seems you have quite a following on here, and that's cool; I'm surprised in my almost decade of editing here regularly, we've never crossed paths until now. Maybe our paths will cross again whenever I start editing again. Anyways, take care. Steel1943 (talk) 08:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, Steel1943. I didn't intend for your reaction to the TfD leaning keep to be your departure, and I'd rather you didn't, but I understand deeply and personally the matter of feeling dejected. I became active after your last departure, hence the lack of overlap, but plenty of people I quite like speak highly of you; I myself spent an extended period away from the project and am still running at about a third of my prior monthly edits. (Overlapping reasons, too, if you pick up what I'm putting down.)
    I don't think either Aza or Jenhawk intended to come across as toxic; I think they, like myself, were distressed by what came across as an unexpected attack on a humour template that hadn't caused prior issues. They of course can speak for themselves, but as far as people I've met in this weird and wild world who could be called toxic, they've both always been very low on the list. I won't say I wasn't upset by the nomination -- it's fairly clear I was. But...I've always had to try live my life as someone who feels negative emotions intensely. It doesn't always work, but it does mean I know all too well how it feels for other people with that experience. Be well, and I hope to see you soon under better circumstances. Vaticidalprophet 08:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, you caught me right before I was going to log off! For the record, it wasn't the "TfD leaning keep" that did it (that doesn't bother me since that's the nature of Wikipedia ... community-based consensus means you can't be right every time), but rather it was the fact that I caused another editor the amount of grief that I did; as someone who has (unfortunately) experienced that here a multitude of times, it is, put bluntly, a terrible experience that I wish on no one. Steel1943 (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think being able to recognize and regret is an unmitigated positive. If the people who do that stay and the people who don't go, we'd have a hell of a lot more functioning processes. Bad selection pressures to put it the other way, IMO. But, even then -- genuinely, no hard feelings :) Vaticidalprophet 09:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (talk page stalker) @Steel1943: Editors will just assume what other editors are doing without reaching out to the source itself. That's very true. Did you reach out to anyone before nominating this template for deletion? Post a message on the template talk page? Talk to the creator, or any users who were transcluding it? I think that's why some folks had a strong reaction to it. I hope you stick around, though, or if not, come back soon, this is no big deal. Levivich 15:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Steel1943 Wikipedia can certainly be toxic, and if you knew what my first year and a half here was like with a stalker who was later banned from WP altogether, you would understand when I say my intent was anything but that. I was reacting out of total sympathy to Vaticidalprophet because of my own experiences, but you are right, I did so blindly. I assumed things I shouldn't have, and for that I apologize. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
One year!

Did you know that 10 years ago, I wrote he was despised, and didn't only think of Jesus? - feeling not wanted seems to be part of this project, - let's do what we can to appreciate --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda :) Vaticidalprophet 01:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skepticism and coordinated editing proposed decision posted[edit]

The proposed decision in the Skepticism and coordinated editing has been posted. Please review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Winkler GA[edit]

What's ya rush, baby?!

Hey there, I'm wondering if you can share the timeline for when you will be ready to continue the Henry Winkler GA review? Thanks-Classicfilms (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

re: image and caption - lol, kudos for creativity! I'm not in a rush so much as wanting to make sure I have time set aside to respond to the changes. Balancing time...-Classicfilms (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Classicfilms (h/t to Serial for the image :) ) I'm currently not in a place to edit very much, so I might have to drop the GAN. I'll see if there's an opportunity for anyone to pick it up? Vaticidalprophet 22:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no worries. I'm wondering if there is a way to do this so that the GA Review doesn't read as failed, but rather transferred to someone else? I'm not sure how to do that. Maybe an admin can help? As I mentioned, I'm not so much in a rush, as wanting to make sure that I am available when someone is ready. So, keep me in the loop and let me know how to proceed.Cheers - Classicfilms (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vaticidalprophet, Classicfilms, we can always request a second opinion, and note in the review that we're looking for someone to finish up the review, not simply render a short opinion. Would you like me to do that? BlueMoonset (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset - Thank you for the great idea, if that is something that works for Vaticidalprophet, then yes, please go ahead and do that. If you do that, could you perhaps also update me on my talk page? Thank you, -Classicfilms (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vaticidalprophet and BlueMoonset - I'd like to hear your thoughts on the best way to move forward on the Henry Winkler GA? Thanks-Classicfilms (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Classicfilms, I'm going to request that second opinion today. Vaticidalprophet has said that they aren't in a place to edit very much, and given that they haven't responded here in a month, that must still be true. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset - Oh absolutely, of course, completely understand. Thank you so much as well. Perhaps as a way to move forward, we could move further conversations to my talk page? I will continue to check in about once a day. Thank you again, -Classicfilms (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter[edit]

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

  • New York (state) Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
  • Christmas Island AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
  • Kingdom of Scotland Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
  • Philadelphia GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
  • United Nations Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
  • SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
  • United Nations Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed[edit]

An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  • Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
  • Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
  • A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
  • Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
  • GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
  • Editors are reminded that discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people have been authorized since 2014. Editors named in this decision shall be considered aware of these discretionary sanctions under awareness criterion 1.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

Hi, I am trying to get my information straightened out and cleaned up if there is anyway that you could help me out with this, I will be able to help others out with there's as i learn to do with mine. And Thank You for your time. Realme233 (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review[edit]

Hi! I got a notice today that you had failed the GAR of Christianization of the Roman Empire. What's up with that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Probably just the bot acting up again, Jen: it's known to have issues with articles that have been nominated more than once. The actual second review (by Display name 99) is at Talk:Christianization of the Roman Empire/GA2. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, taking a look, I think this was a logistical thing on the bot's behalf. The first review needs to be closed somehow for the second to begin, so it processed on the bot's end as a fail and sent you an accordant notification. I'm glad to see it got picked back up! Vaticidalprophet 08:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, it wasn't the bot, it's been quick-failed. I wasn't notified and had no idea it had even been picked up again, but I am sorry it did. It's the worst review I've ever seen. I will wait awhile and renominate and hope for someone fairer who doesn't come with prior expectations. I keep having to explain, the is sociology not political history. It says so in the article, but apparently it doesn't register. I've never had this much trouble with an article before. You would have been a much better reviewer. I am truly sorry I lost you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Disability Day of Mourning[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Disability Day of Mourning 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 GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Disability Day of Mourning[edit]

The article Disability Day of Mourning 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:Disability Day of Mourning for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication[edit]

On 1 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a NASA essay collection said ancient carvings "might have been made by aliens"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication), 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.

~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 00:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Disability Day of Mourning[edit]

The article Disability Day of Mourning you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Disability Day of Mourning 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 GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Histmerges?[edit]

Hey Vati - been a while since we crossed paths! I'm eyeing a complete rewrite of How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, and want to try doing it in userspace and then dropping it in when it's ready. I think I remember seeing that you've done similar things on an even larger scale using histmerges. Any chance you can offer some advice about how to make that happen? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 02:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ezlev -- yeah, I've done that. There are a few ways of doing things like that; my personal preference is histmerging, but other people prefer to just copy the article over the mainspace one (which should be okay for attribution if only you edited it). The different preference in my case is that it's easier to see the formation of the new article with the full history accessible, and easier for someone disputing some but not all of the changes to describe what specific parts are disputed (rather than risking full-blown edit wars between radically different renditions of a whole article). I've just used the template to request a histmerge in these cases. You can also do the work offwiki entirely, which if you're working on high-activity articles is probably smoother -- histmerges require few or no edits to the mainspace article to prevent conflicting histories. I'd use histmerges for a low-activity article and working offwiki then copying over for a high-activity one, personally. Vaticidalprophet 02:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Ava Cherry mobile view.jpg[edit]

Notice

The file File:Ava Cherry mobile view.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused Wikipedia screenshot.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 16:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minorax, please check the "What links here" for a file before tagging it for deletion as unused, especially if it's a projectspace-related file (which are usually linked rather than transcluded). The bot mistakenly tags files that are linked and not transcluded as unusued; probably the absolute majority of filespace PRODs I've seen for 'unused' project-related files are misplaced. This file is in use as a demonstration of an article's mobile structure during its GAN. Vaticidalprophet 05:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2022 May newsletter[edit]

The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

  1. New York (state) Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
  2. Christmas Island AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
  3. Kingdom of Scotland Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
  4. Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
  5. Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
  6. United States Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
  7. England Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.

The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discontent Content[edit]

Hi there! I was wondering if you would be willing to write an issue of Discontent Content to be republished in the May issue of The Signpost? I noticed that the newsletter hasn't been published since June (almost 1 year)! Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 11:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Working Man's Barnstar
For reviewing at least 7 points worth of articles during the January 2022 GAN Backlog Drive, I hereby present you with this barnstar in my capacity as coordinator. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022[edit]

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello Vaticidalprophet,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 819 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 859 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive[edit]

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives.
Click here to opt out of any future messages.

(t · c) buidhe 04:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022[edit]

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Vaticidalprophet,

Backlog status

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

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

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

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

Backlog drive

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

TIP – New school articles

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

Misc

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

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 11019 articles, as of 18:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

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

Reminders
  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Notes
  1. ^ not including another ~6,000 redirects
  2. ^ The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

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

WikiCup 2022 July newsletter[edit]

The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

  • Zulu (International Code of Signals) BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
  • Kingdom of Scotland Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
  • Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.

Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article nomination, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. WikiCup judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2022 September newsletter[edit]

WikiCup 2022 September newsletter[edit]

The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

At this stage, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For the remaining competitors, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. The judges are Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Phase II of DS reform now open for comment[edit]

You were either a participant in WP:DS2021 (the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions reform process) or requested to be notified about future developments regarding DS reform. The Committee now presents Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Phase_II_consultation, and invites your feedback. Your patience has been appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Bowieandava.jpg[edit]

Notice

The file File:Bowieandava.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:DECORATIVE non-free use in Ava Cherry#Relationship with David Bowie which fails WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#CS). While it's apparent that Cherry and Bowie had a personal and professional relationship in the 1970s, there doesn't appear to be a sourced critical commentary specific to this particular photo of them together; so, the non-free image isn't needed for that purpose. Moreover, a non-free image of the two togehter doesn't really need to be seen by the readers of the article to understand the article content about their relationship or be "represent" their relationship as the non-free use rationale claims. Stating the image is needed as a "pictorial demonstration of their relationship" is pretty much the defintion of decorative non-free use, and there's nothing about Cherry's aesthetic sensibility that's particularly sourced to this specific image.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Low library[edit]

Vat, I was wondering if you were still planning to do a review on the Low Memorial Library FAC? Hog Farm Talk 20:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As requested[edit]

[2] ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2022 November newsletter[edit]

The 2022 WikiCup has drawn to a close with the final round going down to the wire. The 2022 champion is

  • England Lee Vilenski (1752 points), who won in 2020 and was runner up in both 2019 and last year. In the final round he achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on cue sports. He was closely followed by
  • Kingdom of Scotland Bloom6132 (1732), who specialised in "In the news" items and DYKs, and who has reached the final round of the Cup for the past three years. Next was
  • Zulu (International Code of Signals) BennyOnTheLoose (1238), another cue sports enthusiast, also interested in songs, followed by
  • New York City Muboshgu (1082), an "In the news" contributor, a seasoned contestant who first took part in the Cup ten years ago. Other finalists were
  • Sammi Brie (930), who scored with a featured article, good articles and DYKs on TV and radio stations,
  • United Nations Kavyansh.Singh (370), who created various articles on famous Americans, including an FA on Louis H. Bean, famed for his prediction of election outcomes. Next was
  • Chicago PCN02WPS (292), who scored with good articles and DYKs on sporting and other topics and
  • Toronto Z1720 (25) who had DYKs on various topics including historic Canadians.

During the WikiCup, contestants achieved 37 featured articles, 349 good articles, 360 featured article reviews, 683 good article reviews and 480 In the news items, so Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors. Well done everyone! All those who reached the final round will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or the overall leader in this field.

  • England Lee Vilenski wins the featured article prize, for a total of 6 FAs during the course of the competition and 3 in the final round.
  • United Nations Kavyansh.Singh wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 2.
  • Adam Cuerden wins the featured picture prize, for 39 FPs during the competition.
  • Toronto Z1720 wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 35 FARs in round 4.
  • New York (state) Epicgenius wins the good article prize, for 32 GAs in round 1.
  • SounderBruce wins the featured topic prize, for 4 FT articles in round 1.
  • England Lee Vilenski wins the good topic prize, for 34 GT articles in round 5.
  • Sammi Brie wins the good article reviewer prize, for 71 GARs overall.
  • Sammi Brie wins the Did you know prize, for 30 DYKs in round 3 and 106 overall.
  • Kingdom of Scotland Bloom6132 wins the In the news prize, for 106 ITNs in round 5 and 289 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January and possible changes to the rules and scoring are being discussed on the discussion page. You are invited to sign up to take part in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to have a good turnout for the 2023 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners and finalists, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions review: proposed decision and community review[edit]

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process. The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics procedure adopted[edit]

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process.

The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The above proposals that are supported by an absolute majority of unrecused active arbitrators are hereby enacted. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) are directed to take the actions necessary to bring the proposals enacted by this motion into effect, including by amending the procedures at WP:AC/P and WP:AC/DS. The authority granted to the drafting arbitrators by this motion expires one month after enactment.

The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process.

This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure adopted

Merry Christmas![edit]

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :) BOZ (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the 2023 WikiCup![edit]

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2023 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion[edit]

I don't see a notification on your user talk page, so I want to make sure you've seen that the article Kelsey Piper, which you created, has been tagged for proposed deletion. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics procedure now in effect[edit]

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period.

The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure now in effect

Reorganizing the skin RfC[edit]

After discussion the RfC has been reorganized into "support", "oppose," and "neutral" subsections with numbered lists instead of * lists, and a "RfC discussion" subsection. A numbered list didn't work right with your comment, so I tweaked your syntax, changing

day.)
:<p>If Wikipedia

to

day.)<p>If Wikipedia

Is this acceptable? --Kizor 01:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Vaticidalprophet 05:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment[edit]

You are receiving this message because you were a Good article reviewer on at least one article that is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 or you signed up for messages. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of Good articles for copyright and other problems, unless a reviewer opens an independent Good article reassessment and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information. A list of the GA reviewers can be found here. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. You can opt in or out of further messages at this page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move review for Marash[edit]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Marash. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. – anlztrk (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2023 March newsletter[edit]

So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

  • Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
  • New York (state) Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
  • Germany FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
  • United States TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
  • Byzantine Empire Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.

The top sixteen contestants at the end of Round 1 had all scored over 300 points; these included Berkelland LunaEatsTuna, Thebiguglyalien, Sammi Brie, New England Trainsandotherthings, England Lee Vilenski, Indonesia Juxlos, Unexpectedlydian, Washington (state) SounderBruce, Wales Kosack, BennyOnTheLoose and Chicago PCN02WPS. It was a high-scoring start to the competition.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Signups open for The Core Contest[edit]

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—will take place this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Happy First Edit Day![edit]

Hey, Vaticidalprophet. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! interstatefive  00:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2023 May newsletter[edit]

The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:

Other notable performances were put in by Sammi Brie, Thebiguglyalien, MyCatIsAChonk, Chicago PCN02WPS, and London AirshipJungleman29.

So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vaticidalprophet/Archive_6&oldid=1159302269"