If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me (((Ping|Significa liberdade))), so that I will be notified. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, linking to your username, so that you will be notified. Please click here to leave me a new message.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Medhat Abbas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al Jazeera.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been reverted by another independent patroller, so I think your message at my talk is moot now. Maliner (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for letting me know, Maliner. Either way, it's good to remember for future reference. I know I sometimes forget to check the history and draftify too soon or re-draftify. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you have been reverted by an independent patroller for your move revert of mine, in the future, you might want to take more time to analyze the situation before posting talk page messages that point to basic policies, especially when addressing experienced editors. Talk page stalkers monitor those discussions for specific reasons. Cheers! Maliner (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Maliner: Can you explain what I might be looking for when analyzing the situation? I have also asked the other editor why they chose to re-draftify. I just want to better understand so I can help the community and be a better reviewer moving forward. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ETA: After talking with Padgriffin, I was incorrect in moving the article back to the main space given that this counts as a DRAFTOBJECT, which is not what I intended. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I know, WP:Draftify is just an explanatory essay, which is totally different from Wikipedia: Policies and thus is not an ironclad argument for you to revert two patrollers (see WP: Consensus). Two patrollers thought that article didn't deserve mainspace, so they just moved it to draft space. Also, I am not sure how proper it is for you to accuse Padgriffin of violating some policy that never exists. Maliner (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maliner:

1. This doesn't give me any information about how to move forward in the future. You initially told me I needed to "analyze the situation before posting talk page messages that point to basic policies". Did you mean that I shouldn't leave a message pointing to a "basic polic[y]" on an experienced editor's talk page or something else? I would love to learn what you meant so I can be a better reviewer moving forward.
2. I didn't revert two patrollers. I reverted one patroller (you) because I thought the action violated a policy. Both you and Padgriffin were correct that the article shouldn't be in main space. I was also watching the article to draftify it once it had been stable for at least an hour. Once Padgriffin moved it back to the draft space, I left the page alone. After talking with Padgriffin, I now know I shouldn't have moved the article back into the main space as that counts as a objection, which is not what I intended, so I won't do that again.
3. Can you point to where I accused Padgriffin of wrongdoing? I asked them why they chose to re-draftify the article, and they explained that they didn't see the page history, so didn't know that the page had previously been draftified -- only that the article was created, then I moved it to the main space. Due to some error, they saw it had been an hour since it had been last edited, so they draftified.

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And you were wrong here:

1) To assume WP:Draftify as an ironclad policy.

2) You said, Because this violated WP:DRAFTIFY here in this edit. It was ridiculous, as you were asking them to violate an explanatory essay? Really. Maliner (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maliner:

1. NPP tutorial also indicates that you should wait at least an hour before draftifying an article (see WP:NPPHOUR). The tutorial also points patrollers to WP:DRAFTIFY. This may not be an "ironclad policy" on Wikipedia, but it is highly recommended for patrollers "Unless there are serious content problems", i.e., attack, copyright issues, and/or blatant vandalism.
2. I'm still not seeing what you're seeing. In my message to Padgriffin, I said that you violated a policy. Regardless of whether WP:DRAFTIFY is a policy, I didn't ask them to violate anything.

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop pinging me. I already told you in my last edit summary that I am not interested in bludgeon here. You were wrong in saying to me that you violated a policy and saying because I thought the action violated a policy above. It is literally ridiculous to quote essays like Wikipedia policy and accuse someone of violating some nonexistent policy. Two patrollers thought that the article was not ready for main space, so it’s kind of WP:Consensus. And I don’t expect someone to come to my talk to create drama just because I didn’t follow one explanatory essay by not waiting for 11 minutes to send a poorly sourced article to draft space (which was later declined at AFC by a third uninvolved patroller). Don’t you think you’re wasting your time here by bludgeoning? Please stop it now. Maliner (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• No one cares about your hard and fast rule of 60 minutes. See this. This was the draftification in just 30 minutes by our former admin, Fram. And I appreciate their draftification because It was completely unreferenced. Maliner (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Hello again, Maliner. I have agreed that 1) I should not have reverted your draftification and that 2) the draftification, had it happened later, would have been justified; I would have done it myself. Based on NPP guidelines, which I linked above, reviewers should wait at least 60 minutes before draftifying an article. Would you like a third opinion on this issue from a current admin on NPP, such as Hey man im josh or Rosguill? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  (talk page stalker) Hi @Maliner and Significa liberdade, I'm not an admin but I'll try to provide a 3O to defuse this. The oft-quoted one-hour wait time comes from the result of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination/Archive 5#Minimum deletion time, where it was decided to change the grace period for deletion nominations from fifteen minutes to an hour. Draftifications were included in this discussion and it has been NPP's advice to wait for an hour since. Early taggings, draftings and nominations do happen of course, but editors are encouraged not to in order to avoid interrupting ongoing article creation and discouraging newcomers.

  Maliner, in regards to your comments: "No one cares about your hard and fast rule of 60 minutes". I wholeheartedly disagree. Simply checking out the recent draftifications of most NPRs should show that we do care about this for the important reasons below. "Two patrollers thought that the article was not ready for main space, so it’s kind of WP:Consensus": one could equally say that about the discussion I linked above. By my count, six NPRs advocating for the change here, four of which were NPP coordinators. To quote the Arbitration Committee in their 2013 case, Infoboxes:

  Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account. (emphasis mine)

  Regardless, I feel like debating over "essay" vs "guideline" vs "policy" is missing the point here. Editor retention is a large problem we face, especially when coming into contact with NPP and early tagging. A draftification when creating an article can be seriously demotivating, so we should give a larger window to soften the blow and allow as much time as is reasonable for creation. When reviewing new pages, unless there is a serious content violation, per WP:NPPHOUR we should avoid early tagging to minimise biting newcomers, which is a guideline:

  A newcomer may save a tentative first draft to see if they are even allowed to start an article, with plans to expand it if there is no backlash. If, within a few minutes, the article is plastered with cleanup tags, assessed as a "stub" or even suggested for deletion, they may give up. It is better to wait a few days to see how a harmless article evolves than to rush to criticize. (emphasis mine)

  Maliner, if you feel strongly about this and want to take it further, I would suggest posting at WT:NPP. All the best, Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 21:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm going to ask you to please revert yourself on these edits. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should include an overview of the article, so removing the passage about critical reception contradicts this. Per WP:DASH, non-breaking spaces should precede ndashes. And per MOS:VAR, MOS:RETAIN, and WP:ALBUMSTYLE, you should not change the existing track listing style to add ((Track listing)). Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums&oldid=1198212234#Track_template Can I trust you to undo these edits, please? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Instead of undoing this addition, you actually repeated this problem on another article. Please undo these edits per MOS:VAR, MOS:RETAIN, and WP:ALBUMSTYLE. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Koavf: The edits have all been undone. I did not see your messages until now and was previously unaware of some formatting guidelines relating to albums. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I sincerely appreciate your willingness to collaborate and I'm glad to have you on this project. Thanks so much for being receptive and please let me know how I can help you in the future. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Koavf! I really appreciate your message. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't always been as mature and humble as you, so I try to recognize and show respect. I appreciate you, amiga. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw that you unreviewed the article Emily Blumberg . I wanted to drop a note to say an administrator removed your notability tag and I have marked the article as reviewed. The person meets our guideline for WP:NPROF. Thanks. Lightburst (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, @Lightburst. I often find NPROF confusing, especially since many Wikipedia pages for academics rely solely on their profile pages at the university/association they're employed with. To help me better understand, could you point out how it's clear that Blumberg (and Andra Blomkalns) meet NPROF? I'd appreciate your feedback. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nevermind. I see now that both were presidents of the American Society of Transplantation. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Significa liberdade. Thank you for your work on Andra Blomkalns. Lightburst, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

This one meets WP:NPROF as well

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|Lightburst)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Lightburst (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was suprised to see that there were no descriptions that I had added for previous episodes. Is this a glitch or something? VizDsouz (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, VizDsouz! The episode descriptions were removed for copyright violations. You may re-add the description using your own words. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion but I won’t be adding them again until the english episodes start airing because the descriptions will be alternate but smaller when compared to the Japanese ones. I have a feeling that many sites have copied my descriptions and put them on their sites (except the wbo and the beyblade wiki) without giving credits or siting where they took it from. VizDsouz (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also thank you for bringing me into notice about the sites especially the movie database where they were found. I filed a case of DMCA to the movie database regarding the episode descriptions. VizDsouz (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for keeping me in the loop, @VizDsouz. I know sometimes it can be difficult to know when other sites copy Wikipedia. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women in Red | February 2024, Volume 10, Issue 2, Numbers 293, 294, 297, 298 Online events: New: Alphabet run O & P | Black women Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcement Please let other wikiprojects know about our February Black women event. Tip of the month: AllAfrica can now be searched on the ProQuest tab at the WP Library. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply[reply]

How Can I Get Sources That I Need On TRBL-FM? 985thelou (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, 985thelou! Thanks for reaching out. As someone from the Radio King Inc Team, you should not edit or create articles related to Radio King Inc Team as this violates Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. If you would like to create other articles, I suggest checking out The Teahouse. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That The Company We Work For Is Radio king Inc We With They Company 985thelou (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

& How Can WFUN-FM & WHHL Be On Wikipedia But My Station Can Not 985thelou (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

985thelou: There is no problem with your radio station being on Wikipedia. However, it is against Wikipedia's guidelines for you to create the article because you are biased. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okey If I Remove Radio King Inc From my Wikipedia Page & Put No Company Then Can I Have a Page 985thelou (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@985thelou: Regardless of whether you remove the information from your page, it is clear that you have a conflict of interest relating to this subject. I would suggest you focus on editing other subjects. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So I Just Need Make

== References & I Be Good? ==

985thelou (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, great idea, I should have known! Cheers! Brian B. Smith (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How Can I Get Sources 985thelou (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your comment about being confused by the list of voice actors was valid. I recently changed up the list of voice actors to align with what is listed on the film's official website, while putting the other characters into another section. Some of the articles I've read (and added to the draft) said there were seventy-seven Pretty Cures featured in the film... but the official website ONLY listed 18 characters, and that page lists all the voice actors. At present, I am not sure whether the others listed in the "other characters" section even appear in the film at all, apart from cameos. Historyday01 (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Legionnaire (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ISNA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Beyond Magenta you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Beyond Magenta for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome, welcome, welcome Significa liberdade! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)18:55, 1 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

Hello, Significa liberdade. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Lasha Khozashvili".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 00:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Bigyna Dahal, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "generic title" error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please review the article, thanks! СлаваУкраїні 15:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Significa liberdade: hello? СлаваУкраїні 09:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi SL. Do you think this article was eligible for BLPPROD as it was when you tagged it? It had an IMDB external link that verifies some of the content. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, @Firefangledfeathers -- I think I may have mistaken the BLPPROD nomination criteria and the BLPPROD tag removal criteria. To remove the tag, the article needs a reliable source, and IMDb is considered generally unreliable given that the information is user-generated. I have removed the BLPPROD. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. It's a useful but not immediately intuitive asymmetry. Thanks for the de-tag. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited M. Remi Yergeau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GLQ.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello!

I noticed the page Neuroqueer theory because it was in the category "CS1 maint: PMC format" -- at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:CS1_maint:_PMC_format

You can see the previous revision of the page at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuroqueer_theory&oldid=1204676044 where it was in this category.

I made the edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuroqueer_theory&oldid=prev&diff=1204677030 mainly to resolve the pmc attribute.

It was pmc=PMC8992885 whereas it should have been |pmc=8992885 (i.e., there should be no PMC prefix).

I wonder how it got that PMC prefix? Did you insert the citation manually, or you used some tool that inserted that PMC prefix?

I notice that this attribute was in the other pages too edit by other people, so I am interested to know how this prefix gets there.

Thank you in advance for letting me know. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, @Maxim Masiutin! Thanks for reaching out with this question. To create the bibliography and further reading lists, I started by using the "Add a citation" function in Visual Editor. Since the articles have DOIs, the feature is usually pretty good at grabbing information, but sometimes I'll manually make any adjustments in VE before moving to Source Editor. In SE, I then remove the <ref> and </ref> tags. Occasionally, "Add a citation" also selects the wrong citation type (e.g., journal instead of book), so I make those changes in SE. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you mean that you insert only DOI or only URL via the "Add a citation" function in Visual Editor and this function automatically fills other attributes, including "pmc" (PubMed Central), doing it incorrectly for this particular attribute? I guess we have to report this issue to the authors of this function in the Visual Editor. What do you think? It turns out to be that every citation added via the Visual Editor that have the "pmc" (PubMed Central) attribute has this attribute incorrectly formatted!? Do you have any idea on where should I report that? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Maxim Masiutin: Correct -- I only enter the DOI or URL into the "Add a citation" function in Visual Editor, so it is creating the PMC issues. I'm thinking this would be something to report on Phabricator. It looks like this issue was brought up in 2017 ("Visual Editor adds erroneous text "PMC" to citation template pmc= parameter"), and there have been issues getting movement on the coding. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maxim Masiutin: I've gone ahead and added just a quick note to the existing Phab page just to indicate that the error is still occurring and added a sample DOI that causes the error. The ticket is listed as open, but it's not active... Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for letting me know, I also left a message at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T157152 - hope it helps. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will probably fill the bug report at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/tool-refill/ Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong citation type that you've mentioned, i.e. journal/vs book does not matter, because both have the "pmc" attribute as an allowed attribute. The value of this attribute in any case should be a number. In your example,it should have been "8992885", not "PMC8992885". Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also noticed that the reFill tool at https://refill.toolforge.org/ also adds this prefix. Probably, multiple tools use the same source code library or API. I submitted a message with bug report at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zhaofeng_Li#Refill_bug_reports - however, I don't know whether it was an appropriate place for reFill bug reports. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also created a report at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T357000 Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With regard to this diff, could I ask why it was ((BLP Unsourced)) rather than just a regular ((unsourced))? I didn't see any BLP material in that article but I didn't want to change it without checking. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 23:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Matthewrb: That would be an issue of me typing too quickly and not paying enough attention. I typed "unsourced" into Twinkle and selected the only option, which was 'Unsourced BLP' (compared to 'unreferenced' for non-BLP articles). My mistake. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Significa liberdade Thank you! I just wanted to be sure, rather than just changing it. :) ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 00:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Significa liberdade for collecting more than 200 points during the January 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 16,070 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Asymmetric Epicyclic Gears Award
		This award is given in recognition to Significa liberdade for collecting at least 50 points during each week of the January 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 16,070 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		This award is given to Significa liberdade for doing over 25 re-reviews, in the January 2024 NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to the drive! – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.

Our current leader is newcomer Generalissima (submissions), who has one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher) and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), with one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, and two DYKs;
• Vami_IV (submissions), with one FA on Doom (2016 video game), one GA on Boundary Fire (2017), and 11 reviews;
• MaranoFan (submissions), with one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and two DYKs;
• Skyshifter (submissions), with one FA on OneShot and one DYK;
• Sammi Brie (submissions), with five GAs and five DYKs on television and radio stations;
• voorts (submissions) and Elli (submissions), both with one FA and one DYK each.

As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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) 17:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a common point of confusion, but just because the pages linked do not have a title that matches exactly does not mean they don't count for the purposes of WP:G14. See for example Thomas Ainsworth (disambiguation) or just all of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 27 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:28FE:18EC:5EF5:4EAF (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]