I've noticed that your signature has been displaying like code in DYK nominations. I suspect the first character in it is a space. Check it and remove it if it's there. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh you were correct, thanks Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry about not getting back to you. I would be interested, though I don't know that I'm yet in the best space to be working towards GA nominations. Perhaps in the future when things are more relaxed. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OlifanofmrTennant, I am just letting you know, in order to save you time and in case you begin one yourself, that I will create a ratings table for the Doctor Who series 2 article in my sandbox, which I will then publish on the article. All the best, Lotsw73 (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise against using Doctor Who News. Its a pretty iffy source, regardless I will put toghether some prose. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Mike Ross (Suits) 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 at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by PARAKANYAA was:

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Merlyn (DC Comics), which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

proposal that they were separately notable has failed to achieve consensus, most of this can probably be incorporated into the dc comics page.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Malcolm Merlyn and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal didn't fail it jsut went unanswered for months so just resubmitted it Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article And He Shall Be a Good Man, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the iZombie episode "And He Shall Be a Good Man" gets its name from an Elton John lyric? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/And He Shall Be a Good Man. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, And He Shall Be a Good Man), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't template regular editors, it's insulting. If an editor reverts your edit - it's for a reason. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"If an editor reverts your edit - it's for a reason." Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I explained why your edit was reverted, and attempted to educate you. Your reasoning was "wrong". Try to see the difference, ta. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say "Don't template regular editors" because its rude yet [1] Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A valid usage to educate a newer editor. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If your citing essays WP:SENIORITY. At that point I had around 4000 edits a GA and an FL. So seems kinda like a bit of hipocracy on your part. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to not be educated as a newer editor and refuse to discuss material, simply let me know, and I'll simply add my reasonings in my revert summaries. I could cite my own hundreds of thousands of edits and over a dozen GA's, but that's not relevant. You ever heard of the saying "don't bite the hand that feeds you"? If someone's trying to help you, they're doing it to support you. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt seem like youve been trying to be helpful. It seems like youve been trying to refuse to work with me. Like when you killed a GAN because you refused to replace a source. Infact when I did replace a source you cited WP:PRIMARY concerns. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help you if you won't discuss. I explained the reasoning behind the source. Simply because you didn't like my reasoning, doesn't mean that's a refusal. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except it was. "As far as I can tell, that RNS discussion has not concluded," I repetadly invited you to participate in the open RNS. Your only piece of evidence was "Its been used before". Noting else. You were asked for more reasons and you circled back to "Its been used before. "nor does it have any clear consensus." Outright lie it was pretty clearly against the use of Doctor Who News. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on my editing is duly noted, cheers. I also recommend you be more collaborative with editors in the future here, but that's entirely up to you. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just pointed out how you refused to be coperative and your response is to tell me to be more collaborative? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can see you're just turning this into a "no u" argument. Go ahead and do what you want, ignore the advice of experienced editors and bite their hand. Good luck with your future editing, if that's your plan. Cheerio. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you nominate a book article for deletion, please explain why you feel that the book fails WP:NBOOK. This would allow other editors to follow your reasoning and decide whether they agree. You might want to add explanations to your recent nominations for this reason. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:

• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 707 points, mostly from 45 good article nomination reviews and 12 good articless about radio and television;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 600 points, mostly from 12 good articles and 12 did you know nominations about coinage and history;
• SounderBruce (submissions) with 552 points, mostly from a featured article about the 2020 Seattle Sounders FC season, three featured lists, and two good articles;
• BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 548 points, mostly from a featured article about the snooker player John Pulman, two featured lists, and one good article;
• voorts (submissions) with 530 points, mostly from two featured articles (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three good articles.

The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). 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 would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]