User talk:Vaticidalprophet/Archive 1

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Vaticidalprophet. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! KGirlTrucker81talk what I'm been doing 12:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Kandinsky crater on Mercury.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Kandinsky crater on Mercury.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Wookieepedia
Thanks, yeah, I‘ve started to notice the differences. Sorry I moved those pages though, not sure what I was thinking. --JediMasterMacaroni (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * All good, man -- I wish you the best working it out. By the way, I also noticed you're interested in archiving your talk page here. I'm not sure how it works on the Fandom format (I only edit on one Fandom wiki and it's much smaller than Wookieepedia), but on Wikipedia, if you want to retain an archive of your talk page, there are some specific guides to it and even some bots that can help. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your work
Dear Vaticidalprophet: I wish to thank you for all your comments regarding the User Page Mark Allen Baker. Per your instructions I have worked hard to streamline the page and add a significant number of secondary or tertiary sources, paragraphs have been edited down, quote boxes have been removed and the entry reads far better thanks to all the comments and views of the Editors. The subject's career began when Wikipedia first started. The subject is now writing his 25th book and has sold numerous copies worldwide. PLEASE support this entry and keep it on Wikipedia. I will make any and all corrections you request. Thank you for understanding, it has been a difficult twelve months. Have a great New Year and again Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autograph3 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey
Hi, and thanks for your contributions to date. Please note that when relisting an AFD discussion, there are several other steps you have to take, including collapsing the old discussion, changing the date to the new day, and adding it to the new day's log. I've gone ahead and done it for you on several discussions you relisted, but thought you might find the info helpful. Installing WP:XFDcloser will automate the relisting process. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, -- I'm not entirely sure how I missed that. Will keep it all in mind! Vaticidalprophet (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: Tamara Kolton
Thanks for all your work on the page! A semi-protected status seems appropriate—I'd be on board with that. Kyuko (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Article for review
@Vaticidalprophet Please review Draft:Aashid :) MacKenzie007 (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reaching out, ! Unfortunately, I can't actually help you out here. WP:AFC is a specific part of the project where only people who have applied to be reviewers can do so, and I haven't involved myself in that sphere yet. I might in the future, but it's not part of my focus at the moment. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

AfD Relists
Hi Vaticidalprophet. I'm Barkeep49, an editor and administrator. I happened to come across Articles for deletion/Ernest Greathead today. This was a third relist and guidelines suggest that third relists should be rare and when done should have an accompanying explanation. In looking over your other AfD work from Jan 19, I noticed there was another third relist and also another discussion where the consensus was clear, though the implementation consensus was murky. All of these suggest that you may be falling prey to WP:RELISTBIAS. For instance with Greathead, while there is an argument to be made that a third relist was appropriate there is also a pretty clear voter lean towards suggesting that the article should not be kept and thus it was ready to be closed. Closing/relisting AfDs as a non-administator is tricky and hard to do right - a point I felt even before I became an administrator. Let me know if you have questions about any of this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Entirely fair, . I'm still getting a feel for the third-relist issue. (I do think I made the right call on Central Erin Mills, for what it's worth.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Normally I would read a reply like that, take yes for an answer, and move along happily. However, with respect, I will suggest that you simply don't have the experience to know what you don't know about AfD. AfD is not the best place to learn how to close discussions, so I'm not surprised you think you made the right call on Central Erin Mills. AfD is easy enough that just about anyone could close the majority of discussions. However, completely unexpected discussions prove to be difficult in unexpected ways. This discussion was even called out as not having needed another relist, and properly so in my reading. If you're interested in closing more discussions, great. There are requested moves and RfCs which are great places to do that work and build those skills. If you're interested in AfD, that's great too. It needs more participants and people willing to make comments like you did at Articles for deletion/Yana (surname). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I did wonder, after writing that, if I would have been better not to. I'm not comfortable closing RfCs, but I may look more into moves (which have been more or less entirely off my radar due to concerns about the technical end). Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * (On reread of my last comment,, I think I might have worded it worse than I meant, so do note I'm taking what you say in mind.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 05:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Erasmus Primary School


The article Erasmus Primary School has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable primary school."

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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Erasmus Primary School for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Erasmus Primary School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

How to fix a review count
I have nominated a an article 21-Hydroxylase to be a Good Article. Problem is that on Good article nominations list it shows that it has already 2 reviews, when it actually has 0 reviews. It showed "2" from the day I nominated it. Can you fix it or help and tell how to fix it so it will show the actual number or reviews? You have recently reviewed another article that I have nominated, Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia.

Maybe it was because I accidentally clicked to review the page and then deleted it, see Talk:21-Hydroxylase/GA1 which shows "A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted"?

Thank you! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey . The "Reviews" count after the article isn't how many reviews it has -- it's how many reviews you've performed. In this case, the issue is still technically true -- you appear to have performed 2 reviews when you've actually performed 0 -- and it's for the reason you think it is (having accidentally started reviews for LOCAH and 21-Hydroxylase before realizing that's not how the process works), but it has the opposite implication you think it does. Rather than making it look like the article's been reviewed when it hasn't, it's instead still clear to reviewers that the article needs reviewing (because the section to start or discuss a review still reads 'start review'), and rather gives the appearance that you have done more reviews than you have.
 * In terms of fixing it, I'm unsure if that's possible, and if it is it wouldn't be possible on my end (I'm not an admin). You may want to ask an admin with extensive experience with GAs/FAs if it's possible to reduce the review count for reviews you didn't actually perform, but I'd guess it isn't. (I'd link the talk pages of a couple, but I'm concerned it would accidentally ping them at any rate.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * . Could you please also review the 21-Hydroxylase page if time permits, so if it gets approved, it will resolve the issue with "2 reviews"? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that's not a topic where I have enough knowledge to confidently assess GA status. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: Barkeep49 (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
 * Hi! I see you've recently been granted this. While your efforts are appreciated, I'd suggest getting up to date with policies related to non-vandalism content, for example WP:NPOV (neutrality - often subtle changes in wording are not improvements, even if they might be good faith edits) and WP:SUMMARY (about what the adequate level of detail is, and what is excessive and un-encyclopedic), as edits failing these most often also need to be rejected, for example here. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your concern. I'll keep it in mind. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)