User talk:Skyshifter/Archive 3

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For your review of Skibidi Toilet :) Pamzeis (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Skyshiftertalk 18:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident you nominated as a good article has failed  ; see Talk:Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident 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 TrademarkedTarantula -- TrademarkedTarantula (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Taubaté pregnancy hoax, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page G1.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

		The Featured Article Medal
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Skyshiftertalk 23:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

	The Original Barnstar
	Hard-earned and well-deserved; congratulations on the promotion of OneShot to featured article status! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Skyshiftertalk 23:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  An article that you have been involved in editing—Anitta's anal tattoo—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 05:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Prhartcom -- Prhartcom (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Welcome, welcome, welcome Skyshifter! 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?)

The article Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident 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:Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident and Talk:Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident/GA2 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Prhartcom -- Prhartcom (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident for comments about the article, and Talk:Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Prhartcom -- Prhartcom (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Skyshifter, thanks for participating in the WikiCup. Unfortunately, Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident is not eligible for GA points, as you were not a significant contributor to the article. According to XTools, you aren't listed as one of the top 10 editors by either edit count, added text, or authorship. Additionally, looking at Talk:Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident/GA2, you made a single comment at the review, whereas Feoffer primarily worked on resolving the issues with the article.

I know that this can be disappointing, but according to Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring#General rules, All reviewed content must have been worked on significantly by you to receive points. "Drive by" nominations are not permitted. As a rule of thumb, I would say that, if you've authored at least 5-10% of an article or are listed in the top 10 editors by authorship (excluding things such as archiving references), you would be eligible to claim GA points. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Epicgenius: Sure thing, I understand the decision. Skyshiftertalk 15:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why are you requesting another peer review of that article that you never contributed to, Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident? I gave it yet another peer review during my GA review. Why not revert your edit and instead, do the normal step after GA: Submit an interesting fact from the article to Wikipedia:Did you know? Prhartcom (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Prhartcom: I would've applied your suggestions as the nominator in the GAN review, but Feoffer always got to them before I could. Nothing I could do if that's what they wanted to do. The reason why I opened a PR is because I want to bring it to FAC. But yes, I can also get it to DYK. Skyshiftertalk 22:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK. This article doesn't need another PR right now; I would revert that; I've always considered PR below GA, and then that's it ... next is FAC. Go for it. Prhartcom (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Prhartcom: ah, I never saw it that way. A lot of people open PRs before opening a FAC, even when the article is already a GA. But to be honest, I don't know if I should go to FAC, at least right now, as I'm planning to nominate other articles instead soon. I'll think about it. Skyshiftertalk 01:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

On 6 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article I'm God, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that it took eleven years for the instrumental track "I'm God" to receive an official release? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/I'm God. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, I'm God), 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.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)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

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dariacore (album) 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Averageuntitleduser -- Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

On 23 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Taubaté pregnancy hoax, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Taubaté became the "city of lies" after a 2012 pregnancy hoax? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Taubaté pregnancy hoax. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Taubaté pregnancy hoax), 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.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article Dariacore (album) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Dariacore (album) for comments about the article, and Talk:Dariacore (album)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Averageuntitleduser -- Averageuntitleduser (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Taubaté pregnancy hoax 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Vortex3427 -- Vortex3427 (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.

The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:

•   Generalissima (submissions), who has 916 points mostly from one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher), 15 GAs, and 16 DYKs on a variety of topics including New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures, in addition to seven reviews
•   Vami_IV (submissions), who has 790 points from two FAs on Felix M. Warburg House and Doom (2016 video game), two GAs, one DYK, and 11 reviews
•   AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who has 580 points from one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, two DYKs, and five reviews
•   Sammi Brie (submissions), who has 420 points mostly from nine GAs and seven DYKs on television and radio stations
•   MaranoFan (submissions), who has 351 points from one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and three DYKs
•   Skyshifter (submissions), who has 345 points from one FA on OneShot, one DYK and two reviews

In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to   Vami_IV (submissions), who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. 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 want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges 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) 00:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Skyshifter, I wanted to ask if you still want to leave feedback on the Etika peer review. I'm archiving it later tonight (midnight PST), but I'd be open to extending it if you have any more comments for the rest of the article. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@PantheonRadiance: Other than the unofficial reuploads, which I still think are not allowed, it is fine to close. I might make a more in-depth review at FAC, but I have no other comments for now. Skyshiftertalk 01:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Alright, thank you. I also forgot to mention that I asked about the SPSs on the FA page. I'll trim them before nomination. PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Note: This notification was triggered due to your recent edits to Sweet Baby Inc.

⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 07:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Virtual Self (EP) 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Averageuntitleduser -- Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Skyshifter :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Clovermoss: I've probably exaggerated just a little bit with 7,000 bytes, but it's there. Thank you for the invite! Skyshiftertalk 19:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't mind walls of text, I find them interesting :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Spitfire (EP) 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Nkon21 -- Nkon21 (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article Spitfire (EP) 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:Spitfire (EP) and Talk:Spitfire (EP)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Nkon21 -- Nkon21 (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, would you be interested in reviewing one of my GANs (a list of them is on my user page)? Best, ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 16:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Nkon21: Sure, I can take a look soon. Also, thanks for adding the headline to the track listing, I forgot. Skyshiftertalk 17:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article Spitfire (EP) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Spitfire (EP) for comments about the article, and Talk:Spitfire (EP)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Nkon21 -- Nkon21 (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any suggestions on how to find better sources for my article? Salfanto (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Salfanto: The article lacks reliable sources — you can find a list of reliable video game sources at WP:VG/S. These sources should also give significant coverage to the subject.

Unfortunately, I don't know if it's possible to find better sources for that article. Metacritic didn't index any review, and indeed, apparently nobody reviewed the game, which already makes it difficult for the game to be notable. I couldn't find any reliable source that covers the game. It's possible that the game doesn't have notability for an article, currently. Skyshiftertalk 13:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I do have one source from Metacritic Salfanto (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Salfanto: Metacritic itself doesn't give notability. It's only useful for finding reviews. Like I said, the page for the game on Metacritic didn't index any review. (I am talking about reviews because they are the best way of showing WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources). In its current state the game doesn't meet WP:GNG. Skyshiftertalk 13:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your contributions to Cheerleader (Porter Robinson song). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and Articles should not be created in mainspace where there is no indication of notability, in this case, per WP:NSONG. Incubate in draft space until notability can be demonstrated. . I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article Virtual Self (EP) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Virtual Self (EP) for comments about the article, and Talk:Virtual Self (EP)/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Averageuntitleduser -- Averageuntitleduser (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

	The Original Barnstar
	Congratulations on your back-to-back promotions of Spitfire (EP) and Virtual Self (EP) — excellent work, as always! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Skyshiftertalk 22:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey there! Can I give my aid on your Cheerleader draft? And perhaps we can contribute together for the album page once it's released; I already created the Wikidata page. Thanks! PEACE SΞΞKΞRS [Talk] 10:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@PeaceSeekers: Definitely, go ahead! Skyshiftertalk 10:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's in mainspace now! Skyshiftertalk 10:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Was Skyshiftertalk 11:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your contributions to Cheerleader (Porter Robinson song). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because No, not ready for mainspace. What aspects of WP:NSONG have been met?. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Moved to Draft talk:Cheerleader (Porter Robinson song)

 

Thanks for uploading File:Porter Robinson - Cheerleader.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ghost Voices 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of TechnoSquirrel69 -- TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 06:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article Taubaté pregnancy hoax you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Taubaté pregnancy hoax for comments about the article, and Talk:Taubaté pregnancy hoax/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vortex3427 -- Vortex3427 (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article Ghost Voices 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:Ghost Voices and Talk:Ghost Voices/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TechnoSquirrel69 -- TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

On 27 March 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dariacore (album), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the album Dariacore took inspiration from Internet memes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dariacore (album). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Dariacore (album)), 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.

Z1720 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TarnishedPath^talk 13:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article Crystal Castles (album) 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:Crystal Castles (album) and Talk:Crystal Castles (album)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AstonishingTunesAdmirer -- AstonishingTunesAdmirer (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article Ghost Voices you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Ghost Voices for comments about the article, and Talk:Ghost Voices/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TechnoSquirrel69 -- TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article Crystal Castles (album) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Crystal Castles (album) for comments about the article, and Talk:Crystal Castles (album)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AstonishingTunesAdmirer -- AstonishingTunesAdmirer (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Skyshifter, this article has been failed twice by the reviewer, the most recent time with the nominator having only addressed part of the issues raised during the review, so it is not appropriate for you to restore the nomination, especially with an old date that gives it seniority. The nominator should wait to renominate until they have finished dealing with the issues raised; whether they do or don't, they should be the ones to nominate, not you, and using the future date when they nominate, not last November. I have reverted your recent edit on the article talk page. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@BlueMoonset: The issues raised were basically 2 word changes... anyway. The reviewer took the review two times and barely started it in both instances. In both instances, the nomination wasn't failed because of issues with the article, but because the reviewer lost interest. It seems extremely unfair to the nominator that the article has to be renominated with the current date — yes, the seniority you mentioned seemed to be the most appropriate in this circumstance. Skyshiftertalk 03:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply