User talk:Vaticidalprophet/Archive 2

Your GA nomination of Imprinted brain hypothesis
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Imprinted brain hypothesis 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 Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Kelsey Piper
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I Am God
Nice work on that article, hope to see more from you — Mainly 16:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! Literature isn't a place I've written much, but I'd like to work more in it. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK
Just wanted to ask for your "I am G-d" hook, are you planning on running it for April Fools? If so, you might want to say so on the nomination. Just because I ran a similar hook where the title was just the hook and it caused quite a bit of hassle and DYK do tend to clamp down on them more nowadays as a result.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 19:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I'm not strongly concerned for when it runs, but the April Fools this year seems to have a theme shaping up. I'll see how it goes. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but I'm just giving you fair warning because you will get some backlash for that hook. I won't be reviewing it for religious reasons but all the best with it.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 13:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit on Nikki Turner
Hi there, I have no problem with the removal of the deletion tag in the Nikki Turner page, but by way of explanation, I wrote the page and then stupidly just moved it from my sandbox so it went there with 6 months of edit history on other stuff I had been working on since last August! That was the reason I put the deletion tag on - a different reason than most people use for these. Anyway, I will try and contact someone in admin to just do it for me. It's all good.Realitylink (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I did see the sandbox matter. I removed the PROD because I didn't want you to lose your work on the article along with the sandbox! It's not a matter I've seen before, but considering history merges are routine mop work, I'd assume history splits (so to speak) must be a much simpler solution to your issue. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:28, 3 February 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) 13:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of I Am God (novel)
Hello! Your submission of I Am God (novel) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

I note above that someone was concerned that using the title as a hook wasn't acceptable these days; I'm sufficiently old school that it doesn't bother me, but you might like to supply a second hook in case the promoter disagrees, just to save argument. There's plenty to go at in the article! God sounds like the Star Trek Q... Espresso Addict (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Giacomo Sartori
Hello! Your submission of Giacomo Sartori at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Ktin (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Your closure of the AfD for FreeWill
Hi, you closed Freewill AfD as "no consensus". Can you explain your reasoning for this please? A closing admin should evaluate the reasoning. None of the Keep !voters provided any reasons which were applicable to the appropriate NCORP guidelines and instead argued against the less-strict GNG.  HighKing++ 12:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for coming here.
 * I reviewed the AfD and concluded a "no consensus" close was the only viable option; I suspect if it had been deleted, a keep !voter would be on the deleting admin's page. I found both the keeps and deletes to make persuasive arguments. "No consensus" is a de facto keep, not a de jure one, and the specific format of this AfD struck me as quite strongly "this does not and will not have a consensus" -- it had been relisted thrice.
 * The relative importance of GNG and SNGs is a messy topic, "four people, five opinions". I refer here to "A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article" in WP:SNG itself; the most consensus-y take is that GNG alone needs to be met.
 * I'd like to reiterate the importance of the discussion having been relisted thrice in my explanation. It's an uncommon and controversial move, and it demonstrates that serious efforts above and beyond the call of duty were made to find a consensus here. The fact that there were two thoughtful and reasoned policy-based !votes from opposite directions after the relist ceiling was hit solidified, in my view, that no consensus would be found.
 * Ultimately, 'no consensus' is inherently and intentionally a weak presumption. It would have been inappropriate to close as keep. I found your arguments quite strong (much moreso than the other delete) and heavily incorporated them into my decision; a 'no consensus' close is not an insult to delete !voters, but quite the opposite, a recognition of the claims of all parties.
 * I have no prejudice against this article being renominated -- and consider 'no consensus' closes to lack such prejudice inherently except in extreme cases (e.g. when 'no consensus' is shorthand for 'horrible and vicious debate') -- but would recommend waiting a fair amount of time prior to a renomination, and perhaps getting in touch with the keep !voters to see where their positions came from and what could sway them. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on your logic above I can understand why your reached that conclusion. But you may not be aware of the RfC at WP:N here which is attempting to resolve the various "understandings" of interpreting SNGs and the GNG. The first step is to agree on text on the *current* situation and the next steps will be to agree on what the ideal interpretation should be. In summary, the stance of either/or GNG/SNG is wrong. For some topic areas (the majority of them), the SNG is weaker than GNG so your logic in those cases is fine - if a topic meets either/or, it meets requirements. But for WP:NCORP this is not true because NCORP is stricter on requirements. The proposed wording at the RfC (which is attempting to agree on wording on the current situation only) says SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the treatment of book reviews for our literature guidelines and the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organisations and companies. Sure, you can say that it hasn't been agreed yet and your decision still stands, but your interpretation of NCORP doesn't meet with the wording on *current* practice either. No biggie, it can always be nominated again in the future, thanks for the detailed response. HighKing++ 13:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "thanks for the detailed response" -- you're very welcome. Ultimately, I take the perspective as a participant myself in AfDs that have had no-consensus closes I disagree with that such closes are rarely a matter to get worked up about. If you do feel the need to discuss the issue further, I would recommend talking to the keep !voters rather than me, and as I said before, I have no prejudice against a renomination if the RfC goes that way. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Your closure of Jhon Mosquera RM
This was both wrong and botched - you clearly failed to read the RM to see that the consensus was slightly different to the nomination, and after moving you then failed to create a disambiguation page or fix broken links. GiantSnowman 21:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I'll keep in mind the importance of DAB for future moves; it's a new area for me. Will hope your wording is frustration and not dislike. Sorry if I'm weird right now, you've caught me at a weird time. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was just frustration, apologies. Let me know if you need any help/advice with any of this. GiantSnowman 11:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Renal cysts and diabetes syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intragenic. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I got a 'you added the wrong disambig' message for a case where the thing I was pointing to was explained in full in the disambig and nowhere else on Wikipedia, but not for all the times I've actually made accidental disambig links? Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not the DPL bot, but if I may comment on this: you might be interested in reading the short explanation at WP:INTDAB, about intentional dablinks. In this case Intragenic would prevent both the DPL bot message and someone eventually having to "fix" that link :) Lennart97 (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to comment, . In this case I've omitted the tag because I think it's a "disambig with possibilities", so to speak -- both disambigs go to topics without full articles and with somewhat different wording, and I can see someone making an article or subsection redirect for 'intragenic' at some point. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense! But as someone from over at WP:DPL would eventually, inevitably have 'fixed' the link to redirect it to Intragenic (disambiguation) (or some other target of their choosing) at some point, I've gone ahead and done so myself. If/when Intragenic is made into an article or into a redirect to an article section, the links to it will be examined and fixed if needed regardless, so no problem there. Lennart97 (talk) 12:18, 13 February 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) 10:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Deprodding of Lsjbot
I have removed the tag from Lsjbot, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks!--agr (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

XfDCloser
Not sure what happened with this - worked fine on the AfD itself and the new date, but no edit was made to the old date. Remember an edit conflict or a failure or something?

Small issue in the grand scheme of things but just thought I'd let you know. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for picking up on that, . I think it may have been an edit conflict. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi Vaticidalprophet. Your account has been added to the " " user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember: The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. signed,Rosguill talk 20:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging  pages for  maintenance so  that  they are aware.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
 * If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

Your GA nomination of 17q12 microdeletion syndrome
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 17q12 microdeletion syndrome you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bibeyjj -- Bibeyjj (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Love this essay
This is the best explanation I've seen of a phenomenon that has long both intrigued and frustrated me (even as someone who leans deletionist). I recall, years ago, a week that saw a race to the bottom at AFD regarding just how far one could stretch (the supposed meaning of) BLP1E, culminating in Articles for deletion/Linda Tripp. Admittedly, that closed overwhelmingly as keep, but it stemmed from a series of flawed invocations of the policy, and I've always thought the whole series of events to be a great example of people attributing more power to the policy than it claims for itself. So it's nice to see an essay addressing the same thing.

Since I see it's a new essay, might I suggest adding something about the difference between BLP1E and BIO1E? Anecdotally, I feel like a lot of the confusion I've seen over BLP1E stems from people conflating the former (a strict but narrow policy) with the latter (a broad but flexible guideline), and therefore citing BIO1E-type principles with the strength of BLP1E. If that makes sense.

Anyways, again, great essay. -- Tamzin (they/she) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 20:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you immensely, ! I've considered expanding it about BIO1E a bit, but currently just have the link while I work out a good phrasing. The way you put it does make sense, or at least more sense than anything I've tried! Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 17q12 microdeletion syndrome
The article 17q12 microdeletion syndrome you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:17q12 microdeletion syndrome for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bibeyjj -- Bibeyjj (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Imprinted brain hypothesis
The article Imprinted brain hypothesis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Imprinted brain hypothesis 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 Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK for The Diving Pool
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK for F.A.T.A.L.
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Editing alert
Barkeep49 (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Entirely out of curiosity,, what triggered this DS notice? I don't recall making any non-minor edits to articles on the conflict, but memory is fallible. (Maybe something during NPP?) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Sweet Sixteen Novel
I'd ask that you take another look at the AfD for this book. I think it clearly passes WP:NBOOK at this point with reviews in Nigerian media, and the fact that it is taught nation-wide for the JAMB test. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:57, 18 February 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) 19:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

FAC: Love for Sale
Hey, I responded at album era with comments and additions to the article. Besides that, can you also comment on or review my nomination of Love for Sale (Bilal album)? It has not received new comments in a few weeks and is running close to the end, and there are reluctant takes on the sourcing in particular. And I am eager to just be done with it. The FA criteria is here at WP:FA?, if you choose to do so. Thanks. isento (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message; I'll get back to you regarding the GAN in the next few days (I'm hoping to do some research on non-Western album history myself to see if I can get anything of use to you). I'm not currently comfortable with the FAC process (I haven't nominated any FACs myself), but I'll check if there's anything obvious I can do. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations
Your DYK hook about F.A.T.A.L. and its Cookie Monsteresque theme song, drew 10,947 page views (456 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is one of the most viewed hooks so far during the month of February and has earned a place on the Best of February list. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Ava Cherry
Hi, thank you for creating the article on Ava Cherry. It was on my to-do list for a while, and I'm really glad to see such a nice article on her. Netherzone (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2538 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thank you immensely to the both of you! :) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This!...starting at 33 seconds into the video. I'm certain you have seen it, but it always puts a smile on my face. Netherzone (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate NAC
Please revert your relist here. See WP:RELISTBIAS There is absolutely no reason for it. CUPIDICAE💕 17:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I counted significant disagreement from a subset of people who wanted the article kept, that I've routinely seen justify relists in the same context from people who have the bit. I've been on the same side in things that were relisted or closed as outcomes-that-weren't-delete, and I've never had a particular problem with those relists. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please undo it and leave it for someone more experienced to decide. The fact that you think 9 well reasoned, 10 if you include mine, delete votes to five keeps that contain virutally no discussion or policy indicates that you lack the experience to be deciding this. This is also the THIRD AFD after two drvs that endorsed deletion. We do not need another 7 days of this. CUPIDICAE💕  17:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll keep that in mind next time I'm in an indistinguishable conversation that gets admin-closed as NC. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, now please revert your bad relist. CUPIDICAE💕  17:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I already did, as you would have noticed if you had cared to look at the AfD. If my reversion was incompetent, I'm sure you can handle that. This is an astoundingly bad time for me and you may have to make allowances for that. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 17q12 microdeletion syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page De novo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Bot denial template added. I'm in a hell of a place about talk page messages right now, and I don't need to have a heart attack just to hear a bot is telling me I did the exact thing I meant to do. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 17q12 microdeletion syndrome
The article 17q12 microdeletion syndrome you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:17q12 microdeletion syndrome for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bibeyjj -- Bibeyjj (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Susanna Ng
Hi Vaticidalprophet. Thank you for deprodding the Susanna Ng page. After that, I added more citations and information. However, the article is now on an AfD discussion. I created the page during the Women In Red Women In Asia contest and I believe the article can and should be expanded. As you pointed out, most of the coverage must be in Asian outlets. I don't speak Cantonese or Mandarin though. I would greatly appreciate if you weighed in on this one. Thanks! TanookiKoopa (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I'm currently staying away from AfD (barring ones I already made or any nominations that get made for pages I heavily edited) for personal reasons. This is a statement I'm not sure I'd make another time, but have you considered contacting the Article Rescue Squadron? They're a controversial group and I frequently disagree with them even as someone with inclusionist leanings, but they're certainly dedicated to finding sources that might otherwise go unnoticed. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see where you're coming from. Thank you for what you've already done for the page and for pointing out the Rescue Squadron to me. I'll look into it. See you around! TanookiKoopa (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Frederika Randall
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)