User talk:Vaticidalprophet/Archive 5

An idea for Discontent Content
Don't know if this quite falls into your inclusion guidelines, but WP:FARGIVEN is a list of FAs that have been identified as needing work, but have not yet been taken to FAR. Could be a possible source for Type 3 DC entries. (I recently put myself on the mailing list for the newsletter). Hog Farm Talk 22:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * sidenote, but that page's formatting is quite unsatisfying to me. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * - I think the issue with the FARGIVEN formatting is that when the page was created, it was only expected that there would be a few on there. However, it's been recently discovered that a large number of older FAs are not up to current standards.  So now there's 150+, which kinda overwhelms the list. Hog Farm Talk 01:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * oh, goodness. Yeah, this looks like another unsatisfying large cleanup task. q.q Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , that's a pretty nice list -- and I'm surprised myself how much this newsletter is taking off :) I'll take a good look through it. Vaticidalprophet 03:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of those at FARGIVEN are really far gone, but getting some attention to the more fixable ones would be nice. Also, any help at FAR would be nice.  Some of these seriously do need FAR more than anything due to systemic issues, and the reason the backlog there is so big is that there's only a handful of regulars at FAR right now. Hog Farm Talk 03:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

GAN
Just checking that you've spotted the second batch of comments I posted at the GAN review of Prehistoric religion three days ago. No tearing rush, but it shouldn't drag on indefinitely.  Tim riley  talk   09:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Aha, thank you, -- I'd missed that set on my watchlist! Have a FAC going on at the same time, so just hadn't noticed it. Will get to them soon; have been a little spotty these past couple days in general. Vaticidalprophet 09:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I clocked your FAC, but it is so far over my head that I haven't ventured in. As they say in Yorkshire, If tha' knows nowt, say nowt, and happen no-one'll notice.  Tim riley  talk   14:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Prehistoric religion
The article Prehistoric religion you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Prehistoric religion 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Old medical FA?
Would you be willing to take a look at Acute myeloid leukemia, one of the oldest FAs on WP:URFA/2020? Talk:Acute myeloid leukemia lists what look like some fairly significant concerns, and there hasn't been a whole lot of action or improvements going on since SandyGeorgia left the notice back in January. Sandy's been on wikibreak for some time now, and neither me nor the other URFA regulars besides her really seem to have significant medical familiarity. Does that one need a FAR? Hog Farm Talk 04:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I remember putting that one in the newsletter. I'll take a closer look at it, although my medical knowledge is pretty pointy/cancer is not my forte. Will ping to this -- might know something I don't, and has a bit more experience with FAR. Vaticidalprophet 04:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My medical knowledge is limited to some hands-on experience with two (? three? no real idea b/c rural healthcare is so bad whenever I hurt myself in high school/college that it was better to just tough it out), so I have no real familiarity with that subject matter, although if Sandy thought it was problematic, I take that as a pretty strong indicator it needs work). Hog Farm Talk 04:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The talk comments are definitely concerning -- painting a condition's prognosis as far more negative than it is is...unspectacular. I have the intuitive sense medical articles are more likely to get saved at FAR, which is encouraging (although maybe less encouraging in the sense that not enough articles get saved at FAR in general). My sense right now is that this will need FAR but has a reasonable chance of getting salvaged, although I'm interested in Ajpolino's view. Vaticidalprophet 04:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi all, thanks for the ping. I'm no cancer expert either. My impression from a quick readthrough of the article is that it's in surprisingly good shape, but -- as the talk page comments suggest -- a bit out of date. The bones look good, so it should be easier than the average FAR cleanup. Of course, finding someone with the time and interest to do that cleanup is always the hard part. I know it's not in the diagnostic lab, but perhaps this is bloody enough to pique your interest? Alternatively (or additionally),  is our Master of Innards and may be willing to cross into the circulatory system if he needs a break from peer review. If folks are interested in cleaning the article up, I can commit to updating a section. If not, no big worries. Without intervention, a review and eventual delisting is probably appropriate. We all understand that med articles fall out of date. 15 years with the big bronze star is a nice marker of MastCell, et al.'s work. Ajpolino (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I could possibly help out with bits and pieces but I wouldn't feel comfortable taking on the article as a whole - this is a topic that really needs someone with subject matter expertise. (At a glance, the classification section is way out of date - the WHO released a new classification system in 2016). Spicy (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both for the comments. Medical quality-assessed article upkeep is a matter I've been dwelling on lately, both in the up-to-date sense ("fortunately" the topics of most interest to me tend to be too obscure for rapid advancements...) and in the general building-sandcastles-on-the-shore sense. At GA level, Down syndrome is one of the articles that makes me really want a second GA sweep. I'm not even sure it's substandard per se, but it hasn't been looked at in seven years and it'd look pretty different if I rewrote it from scratch. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 15:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If it comes down to FAR being what is needed, would one of y'all be willing to send it there? Hopefully it can be saved without FAR, but it may wind up needing it.  There's a cap on open FARs at one time, and I've been right at the cap for most of the last two months due to a couple long-running ones. Hog Farm Talk 15:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure I'll bring it to FAR if needed. If we can cobble together an improvement team I'll hold off. Otherwise I'll open the FAR page some time in the next week? Feel free to prod me if I forget. Ajpolino (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Additional thoughts: pinging, who (like me, in fairness) does more work around GAN than FAC/FAR, but is definitely someone interested in medical article quality assessment. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 09:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi ! I'd actually be happy to take on the article as is. I agree with the queries already raised against it, and it definitely needs improvements. Bibeyjj (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I'm happy to work or more of of the signs + symptoms, pathophysiology and treatment sections. I'll see if I can get started on updating the S+S section within the next week or so. Tom (LT) (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Great! Glad to see everyone chiming in. Let's move this over to Talk:Acute myeloid leukemia. I'll post at WT:MED as well in case that entices any one else to join the team. Ajpolino (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Trisomy X at FAC
Wonderful to see! Just wanted to say I fully intend to drop by the FAC page to do a review and, if needed, a source review. Just need to carve out some time. If I haven't shown up there by mid-week next week please feel free to ping me. I hope all is well! Ajpolino (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

ABF
Thanks for that Vati. My understanding on how MEDCOI works in practice is somewhat limited (fwiw, one of my first med edits was actually an unintentionally coi-ish self-cite, though to my WP-innocent eyes in a different era it felt ok at the time :). 86.169.96.61 (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * All okay in the end. I get defensive of new editors; there's a lot of hazing-ritual-ness in joining Wikipedia that I think we're better without. But I'm happy when things turn out to be misunderstandings :) <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 14:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And agree about "hazing" - most definitely not my intention! The "Hansen Technique"/ "Dr. Hansen" stuff was presented in a way that is likely to set alarm bells ringing. But I'm trusting that depends on a lack of experience (and if there were some sort of medcoi, I wouldn't know the full implications regarding any restrictions on constructive content editing in closely related areas of expertise). Personally, nowadays I prefer to declare an absence of COI (or the existence of a possible marginal COI) for the sake of clarity everytime I feel that others might conceivably be asking (themselves) the question... But when I started out, that would have felt excessive, and I wouldn't have known of the detailed WP guidance anyway. Fwiw, 86.169.96.61 (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Big Time Wrestling at Prep
Hi Prophet, thanks for promoting the nomination to Did you know/Preparation area 5. However, I'm not sure the hook as written is accurate (see the source here), as it was the bear's owner (from Big Time Wrestling) that put the sugar into its mouth, not the police. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Feel free to tweak it yourself in prep. On further thought I should probably unpromote the set because I forgot to actually have the proposed additional hooks reviewed before promoting, so...uh...will do. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 14:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to prod someone? I posted at WT:DYK but have only had crickets on our end. Would AAW's approval of ALT6a count as a review? Sdrqaz (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Liu Yu (political scientist)
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

List of 100 Comedians
Hi, I don't understand the subjective description of that list. These comics do not appear on the Comedy Central list, which is factual not subjective. They are all famous, aren't they? Very confused. What can I do to fix it up? Aabcxyz (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Aabcxyz
 * The premise doesn't work. "Best comedians" is a subjective concept; people writing outside Wikipedia can get away with it, but Wikipedia itself at least pretends to some sort of objectivity, with the consequence that a list of "best X" determined by an editor is out of scope. Lists tend to demand pretty strict inclusion criteria to avoid deletion. "The best comedians not on a certain list" doesn't fit that. Fame is also pretty subjective; ultimately this would need to be a list of "every single comedian with an article not on the list", which is, well, not viable. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 13:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Should I then remove the article and make a new one called "List of Comedians Not on List of Comedy Central's 100 Best Comedians"? As you say, a million comics could then be listed. Maybe the criterion could be that they have to have Wikipedia articles about them to establish signficance. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Aabcxyz (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Aabcxyz
 * No, that article would also be deleted. Lists require strict inclusion criteria, and "almost every comedian with an article" is not an acceptable one. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 14:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Sad. So many great comics are not on the Comedy Central list. Can you suggest how we can resurrect the concept? If there's a list on Wikipedia of the Comedy Central comics, maybe I could insert a sentence about all the great ones excluded. Groucho Marx, Sid Caesar, Tom Dreesen (only George Carlin I think made more Tonight Show appearances), Norm Crosby, the Smothers Brothers. Most of a yesterday, and the Comedy Central people probably never saw them on TV. How do you suggest I could go forward? Thanks. Aabcxyz (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Aabcxyz

Prehistoric religion
WOW! Just wow. I'm totally blown away by the improved article. Quality of the highest order! Nicely done, Vat. Very nicely done! MeegsC (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 13:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

For the bestest of beans!
Only the bestest beans receive said award. You, my friend, are the bestest bean.

Jebbles (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

DYK for Prehistoric religion
—valereee (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

A thought
It is genuinely inspiring to see all of your recent work on Prehistoric religion, core contest or not. I have been chugging away at History of music, and found myself puzzled by so many things. Part of me wants to bring it to AFD just to prove a point; I am yet to find a single book that discusses the "history of music" even close to its entirety; in that sense, there really isn't much sense to even have such an article, though I'm afraid most Wikipedians see too black and white for such a perspective. Given that each section requires almost a completely different set of sources, progress is far slower than I expected (haven't made it past the "Qin and Han" section). I thought this slowness would be what deters me from working on it, but weirdly enough, it's something else. The fact that I even "have" to do all of this is what makes the work hard—just the thought, I mean it's a bit depressing to think that no one in the entire history of Wikipedia wrote written a single word on Africa (to be fair, there was one uncited sentence I've since deleted) or non-Western early modern and modern music in the article. I'm all for letting people work on whatever they want as much as the next guy, but where does it put us in the end? Anyways, my point is that it's encouraging to see someone give such high quality attention to a big topic as I work on a big topic myself, so thanks, and apologies on this mini-rant. Aza24 (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your thanks and your apologetic "mini-rant" -- the complexity of broad articles is a topic I've thought about long before TCC, and there's definitely a lot of interesting things that can be written about it. I totally get what you mean about half-considering AfDing it; I'm very much of the opinion that broad swathes of Vital 1/2 aren't actually coherent topics. How do you write Human history, really? And does it serve readers better to write it than to have a landing page to subpages? I don't think it's coincidental that the one Vital 1 FA is Earth, which is the most concrete, and the lowest-quality at that level is The arts, which is the least.
 * I've gotten a lot of congratulations for Prehistoric religion, but I have mixed feelings on the article at this point. I plan long-term to take it to FAC, but considering where the current pendulum is about article length and subarticles, it'd be archived within days if I nominated it today. It's not going to get any shorter -- indeed it's too short in places and needs a bit of expansion out of overly-brutal summary style -- so I have to write several subarticles, which themselves will be real phonebooks of articles, and that's an admittedly imposing idea. There's also the general fact that writing these mega-scope articles gets a lot of people deeply concerned with their specific specialty's representation (I'm reminded of reading about the Bulgarian sockmaster at Middle Ages), and this is to significant degree what the subarticles are for, but it's...not humanly possible to write 11k words on "the entire planet for 2.5 million years" and make everyone who specialized in a subsection of that happy, y'know? There's a lot of reasons our core articles are in disarray, and most of them ultimately aren't the TCO "people have their priorities wrong" argument. It's a tricky problem to unravel and a trickier one to solve.
 * The geographic thing is...yeah, it's a thing. A lot of these articles have fascinating histories and endless talk page disputes over every matter except how terrible they are. Talk:Prehistoric religion/Archive 1 is by weight about 80% two guys arguing over its scope in 2007. It's an interesting argument that explains a lot about the page's history and intentions; it originated with the intent of covering only Neolithic Europe and kind of expanded by accident. (The list of redirects reveals its original purposes.) The amount of said discussion that revolves around "but an article on prehistoric religion would be too broad to write!" is grim hilarity. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 03:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to imagine that it can also be hard to find suitable sources. I was once reading an older work (1960s I think, maybe Albright) about Neolithic Palestine that mainly summed religion up with a statement about the "cult of the male organ" being prevalent. Hog Farm Talk 04:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It truly amazes me over the nonsense people can talk circles around on talk pages, but then when it comes to adding actual article content, everyone is busy all of a sudden! I'm reminded of this 2005 FAC for the history of music article (at this state...). Sigh, what a time that must have been. In working on composers and often closely with users who have many composer FAs to their names, there's this unspoken shadow looming over how eh of a state the Bach, Beethoven and Mozart articles are in. The Bach article is probably the best of the bunch, but the lack of legacy/reputation and substantial music sections for Mozart and Beethoven is still a huge unaddressed problem. Yet, each page has had like 10 talk page discussions over whether to include an infobox or not, where I'm sure loads of people have taken part—and then happily waltzed away having done their duty... though perhaps this is getting too cynical? :)
 * It's great to hear you're looking towards FAC, my potential (and likewise long-term) GAN nom may face the same issues. After I wrote the Ancient Chinese music section it occurred to me that even though I summarized a ton of information, it still probably wasn't small enough for the article's scope. I began reading on Ancient Iranian/Persian music and found myself ready to offload just as much information—I've had to move some of the enthusiasm to the Barbad article until I can figure out how to really summarize that stuff! My own view is that your article is fine, article size wise, and shortening it would accomplish little. Though, I doubt many agree with me; the general FAC trend seems to be towards tighter summaries, Gog and Buidhe manage this amazingly, though I don't know that I've "completed" a massive enough article topic to see how I do with it. Aza24 (talk) 04:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * An off-wiki friend of mine has occasionally dabbled in Beethoven-related articles. I've regaled him with thirdhand tales of the infobox wars...which maybe aren't a great recruitment tool :) There's certainly a deep well of bikeshedding and a lot of fear of these articles.
 * HF, yeah, the sourcing is absolutely an issue. It's certainly a better field than it was in the 1960s -- you can get full books on the topic now -- but it's still very speculative and always will be. Sourcing broadly is definitely complicated with high-level articles, as Aza indeed says. There's a lot of stuff that's just so general it kind of sucks to write. The positive corollary is that the barrier to entry is lower than it looks, unlike for very technical topics that require a strong basis. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 05:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If only leadcite meshed with summary style, we could solve some of this (though that puts us in the iffy place of having citations outside of the article that they verify). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

2021 Core Contest
Hello. Congratulations on winning first place in the 2021 Core Contest. Could you contact me at karla.marte@wikimedia.org.uk to sort out your prize? Karla Marte(WMUK) (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-retired
I'm sorry to hear that, but I understand how dealing with certain personalities on WP can make it hard to go on. Don't be a stranger though. BOZ (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I also came here to check-in. You've been a massive asset to the medicine content here, and I'll be sorry if I start seeing less of you around. I hope the current situation is temporary and you decide to reengage here soon. That said, there are certainly other (often more important) things in life to spend your time and attention on. So regardless of your activity here, I hope you're staying well. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I second the above. Real life is way more important, but you'll be missed here. Hog Farm Talk 02:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

If this be where we part ways, I am glad to have met you. If we are to meet again, I eagerly look forward to your return. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  08:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for mentoring me vati, hope to see you around again soon.  Draco phyllum  08:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Tony's Chocolonely 03.jpg
 * Hope to see you around again, as I've really enjoyed your presense as an editor as well as a person! Take care of yourself, as real life is important. A bit of fairtrade chocolate to cheer you up if needed:). FemkeMilene (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

GAN from July
The GANl for Bobbi Brown from July 1 is still open? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Vaticidalprophet, please let me know if you aren't planning to return to Talk:Bobbi Kristina Brown/GA1. I can do my best to find a new reviewer, or put the nomination back for a new reviewer. If you haven't returned by the end of the month, I'll assume you won't be returning to it and proceed as seems best. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't return to it. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 02:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello ,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our  Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but  there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

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 or its software. Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Full Trisomy 13 phenotype.png
Thanks for uploading File:Full Trisomy 13 phenotype.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Prep 4
Hey, VaticidalProphet! Thanks your hard work with the prep sets at DYK—more hands on deck is quite nice given the rush from the recent swap to two sets a day. However, there are a few things I wanted to point out regarding the prep set that can hopefully be avoided next time. The prep set looks good so far, but there are some things to cover.

In general, prep builders do make quite a few mistakes. I've made quite a few today. Because of that, it's generally a good failsafe to leave, if not the whole set, a few slots in the last prep set blank—that way, if a nomination has to get bumped from its spot, we can put it someplace else instead of having to depromote and repromote.

In terms of the prep set, it looks like P4 has five U.S. hooks (the first four and the last one). In general, the guidelines limit prep sets to a maximum of four U.S. hooks, and we do our best to space them out over the prep set so that no two hooks from the same country are next to each other. (I usually call it Mechitzaing when I have to pull two U.S. hooks apart, although that hasn't quite caught on yet).

For now, I'm going to depromote one nom, just because I think it might be a while until we have another open prep and I'd like to kill a couple birds with one stone. Overall, really good work—thanks for coming back to help, I appreciate it! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but "whether preps should be built at once or in patches" is a matter of subjective preference, not of right or wrong. (When I was the most active builder, I disliked people building them in patches, because it meant they would by necessity be cobbled together and make it difficult to build a well-flowing set.) I've noticed your work lately taking up that slack -- thanks for it -- but the real nasty secret of DYK is its subjectivity, not its objectivity. Hard balance to figure out. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 06:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

A nice Thanksgiving surprise
I'm very glad to see you back. I hope after your brief break you find editing brings some measure of joy again. Real life has mostly kept me from regular editing of late, but I hope to return to some pet projects here shortly. I hope you're staying well! I look forward to seeing you around. Ajpolino (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . You're all a great bunch of people, in the end. I expect things to be kind of weird indefinitely, but I do plan to make edits. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 05:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Peter Hylenski
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Elisabeth Geleerd
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Elisabeth Geleerd 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 Urve -- Urve (talk) 08:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Carmaney Wong
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Vaticidalprophet, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AVaticidalprophet added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! -- TNT (talk • she/they) 00:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

NPP
What you and are suggesting are nice ideas, but you are probably not aware that it took me 10 years to get the feed and the curation tool built by the WMF to what it is today. You can be absolutely sure that getting anything coded and implemented would take at least 2 years to cut through the WMF bureaucracy and then another year to develop it. Believe me. Much faster and which can be handled locally is tighten up the gatekeeping a notch to Extended Confirmed, and somehow to encourage your 750 NPR rights holders to do some work, or remove their rights. Just like we do with admins. You've also got barely 3 weeks left to work out and hand out this year's NPP awards. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've read enough of the background to be acutely aware of the timelines. I'm a semi-active NPR, although I spent the past four or so months almost completely inactive on Wikipedia for reasons, such that the 'semi' on it is very lame with those accounted for. Getting back into the swing of things over the past couple weeks as an alternative to being sad forever. I think I have much longer posts to write on the complexities of gatekeeping than I did on Iritalk -- but they'd be in monologue. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 09:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that the ACE is over bar the shouting, I'm going back to my semi-retirement. I'm sure anything you can do to help would be much appreciated. Do by all means write your essay, or post a monologe in an appropriate section at Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC, and drop a link to it at WT:NPR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * With autopatrolled about to be unbundled from the admin kit, I'm trying to determine if I should re-apply. I could grant it to myself, but don't really feel comfortable doing that, and I'm not sure if the ~15 articles I create a year truly warrant the perm.  Would there be any benefit to NPP for mine to not go through the pool, or would it be better to let them be sent through in general?  List of created non-redirects here in case you want to judge quality. Hog Farm Talk 20:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * HF, I gotta say, worrying you wouldn't make autopatrolled is definitely impostor syndrome and I'm certain any admin who watches this chat would be enthusiastic to press the button if you're uncomfortable pressing it yourself. 15 articles a year is 15 more articles in NPP -- it adds up -- and more than plenty of autopatrolled editors end up with in the long run, and your articles are absolutely good enough no one's worried about their quality. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 20:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Admins
Schadenfreude always seems to be a feature of the Wikipedia back office. Would not simply 'Kudpung is no longer an admin' have been simpler than  'Kudpung was desysopped several years ago and no longer actively participates.' It is also less less than two years ago, and this would be a more accurate reflection of my activity. Not that at my age I care really, but it's ironic for a project whose mission relies on accuracy and NPOV. Happy New Year. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I assumed you would have preferred 'no longer actively participates', as 'not an admin' by itself lacks implications of activity, and I assumed you didn't want to be pestered to respond to a relatively minor issue by people unaware of the reasons you've wound down your participation. (Said statement was taken at your own word, given you frequently state your dissociation from the project and that you don't wish to be treated as active.) Happy New Year to you too. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This particular issue concerned an isolated admin action and nothing else - in fact the only ping concerning an admin action since I no longer have the tools (which I never abused). 'No longer an admin' would have been perfectly adequate. I have significantly wound down my participation in that I no longer take part in governance issues (as a NAC or becoming a member of the peanut gallery) but I'm still capable of providing content, new articles, GA, and commenting on policies I helped to establish, and I still do a lot more than many 'regular' editors. That for me is the definition of semi-retirement, and I consider it an accurate statement. As I said, I'm not bothered, but you might wish to bear these accuracy issues in mind when commenting about other editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk).
 * Noted. I personally would have found such a ping very painful -- when I was dissociated from the project due to a compounding of onwiki stressors, I received some pings, and I did find them very painful (and they didn't inspire my return). I assumed your experience with being asked to comment on something that drew up complex memories would also be negative and responded to the attempt to dredge them accordingly (i.e. by making it clear to the pinger why the ping was inappropriate). <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 02:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There haven't been any other pings in the last 22 months, but I would simply check out such pings and ignore them. Nothing is painful about my admin tool actions, they have never been questioned, and unlike some admins who pompously constantly write about their Wikiwork in their blogs like, I'm actually proud of the legacy I left with my contributions to content, policy, and new methodology.  I'm sure you didn't intetionally mean to slight me, but it was still half a dozen unnecessary words that didn't concern anyone, especially on such a very minor noticeboard. I'm quite thick skinned actually, but many aren't. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)