DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

User talk:Snow Rise

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác


    This user is busy with off-project obligations and, with apologies, may not respond to all inquiries quickly at this time.    





Notice: I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles.



Archive

Archives



Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 23:30, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2026

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2025).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January music

[edit]
story · music · places

happy new year! - inviting you to check out "my" story (fun listen today, full of surprises), music (and memory), and places (pictured by me: the latest uploads) any day! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nicolás Maduro on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 14:31, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Botched translation events

[edit]

Hi, Snow Rise. Saw your thoughtful comment at Wikipedia talk:Translation#Request for comment (00:19, 13 Jan); am mulling it over, and may even change my !vote because of it. On a related issue: you have a nice alphabet soup of languages, so you are probably a good person to ask for input at Help:Translation/Machine translation errors. No hurry, just woke up one day and realized I had been tsk-tsking now and again when I got bad translations, and then they would be gone with the wind; so I decided and I had better start keeping a list and try to encourage its expansion. I wish the list were twenty times as long so I could point to examples at the Rfc, but alas I don't have much data yet. If you happen to think of it going forward and have the time, would much appreciate any notes about a translation event that left you shaking your head or tsk-tsking. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., Help:TranslationHelp:Translation was merged a little while back to WP:Translation, but the linked subpage remains under the old, now redirected Help page. Any idea what guidelines call for in this case? Common sense tells me it ought to be a subpage of the merged page, but I had a look at Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Translation, and if I moved it there, I will probably never find it again. So, I'm not so sure. Does seem awkward to have it be a subpage of a redirect. I dunno; maybe this is one of those situations where there is no really good solution. What do you think? Mathglot (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mathglot, I'm very sorry for the extremely slow reply--I've been preoccupied with urgent off-project priorities that prevented me seeing this message earlier. That said, I appreciate the motivation behind your documentation, and the next time I stumble across an apt example, I'll consider adding it there. In the meantime, opportunity allowing, I'll provide some input. As to the ideal location for the subpage, I have no compelling policy guidance to provide, other than to say that I agree that there feels like there are organizational and transparent navigation issues with leaving it sublimate to a redirect page. If you moved the content to a subpage of WP:Translation, you could always place a direct link somewhere appropriate and useful to dodge any concern about the clogged index, perhaps? SnowRise let's rap 14:05, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 20:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 25th Anniversary of Wikipedia!!

[edit]

Feel free to read my story at User:Interstellarity/My Story and join in for some Wikipedia-related fun. I hope you like it. Interstellarity (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:President of South Korea on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 16:30, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Greenland crisis on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 16:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Important spelling error of user name

[edit]

@Snow Rise, Hello, I just wanted to point out that the user's name is Iruka, not Ikura; there are other editors with the name Ikura, and it would be unfortunate if confusion occurred because of this typo/spelling error. (This is in relation to the ANI regarding Iruka13.) I'd fix it myself, but don't want to alter another editor's comment, nor do I want to clutter up an already messy ANI. Netherzone (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Netherzone: I very much appreciate your pointing this unintentional transposition out to me; the thread is closed now and normally I would not correct the edit of a closed thread, especially so many hours after the fact, but I agree that there is a concern for misattribution, particularly if someone searches the archives for the incorrect name at a later date, so I will make that correction now. Again, my thanks. SnowRise let's rap 04:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

[edit]
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SSET! That's very kind of you. But honestly, it was no special effort to defend your perspective in that situation. And I'd do it if for no other reason than to try to help preserve your attitude of positive outreach. I appreciate that we are in an antagonistic place as a society right now (wherever you live and however you spend your time), but I nevertheless find it disconcerting that someone should be criticized for the fact that their tone, in trying to educate and improve another volunteer and improve their approach, was not negative enough.
All of which is to say, I hope you don't let that situation change your instincts on how to handle situations like that in the future. Because we need more community members who will do what you did in that situation. And frankly, not everyone has to be or necessarily should be that warm every dispute. But having people who have an impulse to do that is a critical component of the past successes and future survival of this project. SnowRise let's rap 03:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the defense and the observations. I agree. Resort to WP:ANI ought to be for a good reason. Some of our editors don't understand that.
Even before this, I had more or less given up on editing here.
The punitive restrictions on my activities frustrated me and deterred me. They sent me a message, and gave me a reason to break an addiction. So my activity here is extremely limited. It's all over now ... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the OP's report may or may not have been appropriate as concerns the party they were primarily fixated on--despite their overly-heated approach to the discussion, they are not the only one raising concerns about that user. But describing you as enabling or encouraging the issues most certainly was not accurate or appropriate.
That issue to the side, I'm sorry to hear that you've largely given up on the project. I can't really speak as to your sanctions and whether they are appropriate or not; I looked at the related discussions to get a broad view sense of what happened there, but the discussions are both so voluminous and so stale that I wouldn't feel comfortable weighing in, and wouldn't be doing you any favours by doing so, given that re-opening discussions on TBANs cam open up a can of worms for the sanctioned party. I do hope you find a path towards continuing to contribute without frustration, however. SnowRise let's rap 05:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the good wishes. Basically, I was a member of the WP:ARS. I would substantially expand and improve articles that were about to be deleted, present the improvement as an argument as to why they shouldn't be deleted (almost always successfully) at the AFD, and then after it wasn't deleted, successfully take it to DYK. Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard. It would then be on the main page. I created lots of forever tombstones on the failed deletion pages. This engendered hostility. I was T'banned from WP:ARS, from all deletion discussions and from WP:DYK. I was beat up, beaten and ostracized.
I never did anything that was even arguably wrong at DYK. And the reviewers of those nominations so held. That ban was just payback.
I would like to start new articles and get them to DYK.
But life is short. As Kenny Rodgers sang, "You've got to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em." I have my critics, and I presume they would resist again, even though it has been years; and Wikipedia has a history of persistent grudges. Reopening this tar pit just ain't worth my time or aggravation. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:26, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:North Africa and Talk:North Africa on "History and geography" request for comments, and at Talk:Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim on a "Biographies" request for comment, and at Talk:Workers' Party of Korea and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on "Politics, government, and law" request for comments, and at Talk:Proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 23:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2026

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2026).

Arbitration

  • Due to the result of a recent motion, a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may impose an expanded topic ban on Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs, if an editor's Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban is determined to be insufficient to prevent disruption. At least one diff per area expanded into should be cited.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:2025 Bondi Beach shooting on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 11:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 10:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:La France Insoumise on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 15:30, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Bassnectar on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 11:30, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Illegal immigration § Requested move 25 February 2026

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Illegal immigration § Requested move 25 February 2026. Edittttor (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 15:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bold

[edit]

[1] Polygnotus (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks polygnotus: appreciate the courtesy edit. :) SnowRise let's rap 04:52, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2026

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2026).

Administrator changes

removed

CheckUser changes

removed Ks0stm

Oversight changes

removed Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, remedy 9.1 of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been amended to limit TenPoundHammer to one XfD nomination or PROD per 24-hour period.
  • Following a motion, the Iskandar323 further POV pushing motion has been rescinded.
  • The Arbitration Committee has passed a housekeeping motion rescinding a number of outdated remedies and enforcement provisions across multiple legacy cases. In most instances, existing sanctions remain in force and continue to be appealable through the usual processes, while some case-specific remedies were amended or clarified.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NONAZIS

[edit]

Please read the whole thing before starting your response. It moves in a different direction in the last quarter or so. Apologies for the length, but I think you know by now that I'm a literary mason. If it's just too long, then read from the paragraph starting with "My request for input is contingent..."

I was reviewing the close of the proposal to make the essay a policy (in case you weren't aware, I'm a perennial opposer of such proposals, and generally make a point of voicing my opposition) and I followed a link back to a comment of yours WP:ANI#Homophobic hatred by ~2026-13552-25, to which I wanted to respond. I specifically wanted to respond to this part, and to ask for your thoughts on a few things.

Despite a perennial inability of ANI complainants to accept the fact, WP:NONAZIS is an essay, which the community has consistently declined to adopt as policy. In other words, having social views which depart from the norms of our typical editor is not in itself grounds for sanction.
You're correct here. However, one misconception I can see in the foundation of that is that the essay was never written as an exercise in thought policing. As is mentioned in the lead, it is about using "... Wikipedia as a propaganda tool, so long as they stick to the letter of our policies."

The mere fact that it is an essay on Wikipedia should, in my view, make it clear to people that it applies to one's edits and actions on Wikipedia, and is not some bit of divine wisdom meant to be applied to editor's off-wiki lives.

The problem with thought policing is that there is no reliable way to do it. As I have said countless times on this site, none of us really know the thoughts of other editors. Most people aren't even fully aware of their own thoughts at all times (that's not a criticism of those people, among whom I number, just an observation), and often require time and input to help sort them out. There is no practical way for admins here to review all editors for Nazi thoughts and ban those who have them, and even if there was, there's no way to effective decide on a criteria for what constitutes Nazi thoughts that won't result in a either a bunch of false positives or a bunch of false negatives, or -more likely- both.

This is something that, to me at least, is blatantly obvious. It's a fundamental truth of all social situations that you can't ever truly know the thoughts of other people. You have to take them at their word to a certain degree, and combine that with evidence from their behavior (often including body language and tone, which isn't something that gets communicated through text unfortunately) to arrive at the best approximation of their thoughts that you can. It's one of those things that I have serious doubts as to whether anyone who doesn't fundamentally understand and accept it has really finished maturing in any meaningful sense of the word.

The essay says nothing at all about any of this, of course, as the essay is about on-wiki behavior.

Now, with all that being said, you and others still continue to bring up 'thought police', as if the critique actually applies to the essay, which it categorically does not. The essay is not an exercise in thought policing. While 'WP is not the thought police' may be the reason a lot of editors oppose making it a policy, the reason I oppose such is because it was written as and always intended to be an essay, and as such, is fundamentally different from a policy.

When an editor is sanctioned "per WP:NONAZIS", what that means in every single example I've seen is that the editor was sanctioned because their behavior was uncivil, and the specific type of incivility was that which is described in the essay. And of course, WP:CIVIL is a policy. Anything that communicates that one doesn't believe that others have a right to exist is inherently uncivil, and is generally a more blatant example of incivility than even crass insults, which aren't always made out of animosity. For example, I regularly tell my best friend to get her bitch ass back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich, to which she usually replies by calling me a ginger sasquatch motherfucker and threatening to put her foot in my ass. To be clear, I would die for that woman and I would fight anyone who seriously insulted her (assuming she didn't beat the stupid out of them herself before I got my hands on them).

As an aside, I would very much consider "siding/allying/agreeing with people who don't believe that others have a right to exist on related topics" to be almost as clear-cut an expression of incivility as directly expressing one's non-belief in another's right to exist. While there are certain facts that one can be in agreement with Nazis on, such as the existence of the Black-white IQ gap, the reason for the agreement is that there is established and reproducible science showing that it exists. That's a far cry from, for example, someone agreeing that trans people should not be allowed to exist publicly.

So that encompasses my response to your comment there. I don't take your comment (or indeed, any of the other 'thought police' comments) as being made in bad faith, but I most certainly see them as broadly missing the mark, as they're tilting at a straw man version of the essay.

My request for input is contingent upon that: The 'thought police' complaints are quite numerous. And one principle I've always lived by is when one person calls you a dog, you ignore them, but when many people call you a dog, best check for fleas. And many people are calling the essay a dog, so I would like your input on finding the fleas.

I'm looking right now into making a few changes to the essay. Of course, any editor is welcome to do so, but there has always been a noticeable preference among watchers of that page for my own edits to the article, so I'm taking it upon myself to improve it. Among a few other things, I'd like to find some wording that would make it more clear that the essay is not being targeted at editor's thoughts, but at their behavior. I would like to make it clear that the purpose of the essay is to describe a certain subset of behavior (essentially; organized bigotry being pushed out in an evangelical manner, using deceptive tactics and offensive or dog-whistling iconography and language), and to explain to readers why that behavior is not acceptable at WP. I would like to maintain the list of Nazi beliefs (expanding or shortening it as needed), but I would like to take the focus away from that onto the expression of those beliefs on-wiki. Tony was a great help in the early days of drafting this essay, but he's no longer active, a sad state that I dearly hope says nothing more than that he's grown tired of the nonsense here. So I would like to get some broader input.

And that's the crux of the request. Do you have any ideas on this? If you start a new section at the talk page to reply to this, that might invite further input. Or, when this gets to the point of workshopping, I could open a section there to go over some of the changes. Of course, if you wish to reply to my response instead of the request, here is likely the best place for that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:30, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MjolnirPants: thank you for sharing these cogent and nuanced perspectives--with which I am overwhelmingly in agreement--with me, and for the invitation to contribute to the process of tailoring some of the details of the essay to prevent it from be a lightning rod for debate due to the intent behind it being somewhat mistaken by some community members now and again. I'd be very happy to contribute a few thoughts to that process. I apologize that I do not have the time to fully engage with the question today as I am just coming from a pressing engagement and off to another in the next hour or so, and I wish to give as much thought to any suggested adjustments as you clearly did to your preface to that question above. But please expect a response at some time in the next couple of days.
On a side note, I almost took the time to comment at the village pump in response to your comment noting that you did not intend the essay to ever be a guideline requiring specific actions so much as an instrument for contextualizing how the community should interpret and respond to racist and otherwise bigoted behaviour in the broad strokes. I wanted to say that, much as I was opposed to promoting the essay to policy status, that it was a good opportunity to thank you for creating it for the function for which you did intend, because in that respect it is a very meaningful contribution to project culture.
I only eventually decided against making that comment because the discussion had already ballooned in volume quite quickly, and also because I was afraid the tone of that compliment, genuine as it would have been, might be mistaken for me attempting to honey-coat my position and bootstrap it by being genial to the essay's author. However, now that you have given me an opportunity to say it here, I will: I think the essay is very valuable to us as a disquisition on the pragmatic and ethical considerations which should underpin our response to conduct arising out of bigoted movements and small-minded objectives. And I'd be very pleased to play a small part in helping to frame it in a way that keeps it effective as a persuasive essay without it becoming too often leveraged in a way that conflicts with formal guidelines. SnowRise let's rap 00:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When you have the time to get to it, Generalrelative and I are currently workshopping some of those very changes at the talk.
And thank you for the kind words. I really never expected this essay to be anything but something that I would occasionally point to to sum up my own feelings on the subject of whether we should let certain views be debated here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

... CTOPs cover more of the overall articles on Wikipedia than they do not

[edit]

It would be interesting to figure out the exact percentage, ignoring the boring answers of every article due to Article titles, or almost all articles due to Infoboxes. My checking shows its at least 16% (almost entirely thanks to WP:CT/BLP), though I didn't do a very thorough search. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 18:33, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 45dogs, thanks for sharing this: I'm not at all surprised that your investigation suggests that the floor for the overall number is at least that high. I'd be very interested, if you can find time eventually, in hearing your approach. I think we're past time for the project, or some data researcher with the capacities and interest, to undertake a structured and robust census with regard to this question. I've given the subject a non-trivial amount of thought over the last couple of years, but no methodology I have been able to imagine even as a thought experiment feels truly exhaustive, so complex are the variables and technical elements. Personally, I suspect the number is creeping towards 50% if you allow for even a generally broad interpretation of the various individual CTOPS, but I freely admit I wouldn't be surprised if the answer was off by 25% in either direction.
One thing is for certain though: we are well past the threshold where this must be impacting project development in a fashion that is not only not being reckoned with by the community, but in fact has not even been significantly acknowledged. We remain in a 15 year long volunteer recruitment and retention crisis that typically worsens by the year, even as our workload needs continuously grow by virtue of the basic nature of the enterprise. And in the middle of this shortfall, a combination of ArbCom policy making (and the creation and growth of the GS/CTOP schemes are precisely that--policy created without the direct approval of the community) and the similarly well-intentioned but short-sighted protectionist outlook of large segments of the community, are creating massive bottlenecks in the process of engaging and onboarding new volunteers.
Even were we to assume that 16% was the full extent of the problem, CTOP designated subject matter are, almost by definition, areas of outsized importance to potential new users. And yet we have essentially gated them off to new users, and made the path of gaining access to them an incredibly byzantine and (I have to imagine) dispiriting process. So much of the veteran community, and the developments under ArbCom's remit especially, has been focused on shutting down any behaviour that might fall under the loosest possible definition of "disruption", as a supposed solution which protects dwindling project resources, that the major portion of the community somehow collectively lost sight of the fact that conflict over controversial topic matter overlaps with the entry point for many new editors (or at least traditionally did so) and can be the platform for teachable moments that enure potential volunteers to our methods, values, and processes.
I get that this whole evolution happened slowly and innocuously, and this is in any many ways the very definition of a Mertonian consequence, systemic burden shifting, and general short-term satisficing, among a slew of other cognitive biases and pitfalls that orgs/institutions tend to lapse into, but none of it is is enough completely prevent me from being a little gobsmacked about just how bad our collective longterm thinking and failure to recognize the obvious and inevitable knock-on effects has been, in this area. SnowRise let's rap 07:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For that 16%, I combined the transclusions of Template:GS/talk notice and Template:Contentious topics/talk notice with Category:Living people, then just divided it by the number of articles and then rounded. For a bit more accurate of a floor, using Category:Biography articles of living people (minus 2 for the templates listed), plus the talk notice templates (restricted to the talk namespace this time, which gets rid of around 1000), plus the number of entries in Category:2025 deaths and Category:2026 deaths since BLP applies to the recently deceased, you get a total of 1,253,496 articles under a CTOP/GS, or 17.5% of all articles. Some of those numbers are almost certainly overlapping, but the floor being somewhere between 16% to 17% seems like a good rough guess. The only other thing I can think of to make the percentage more accurate would be to use coordinates in articles (e.g. figuring out the number of articles with coordinates to countries in Eastern Europe and adding them to the pile) but I don't know if that is technically feasible. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:33, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a very reasonable starting point, though obviously it rests on the presumption that most articles which are covered by existing CTOP designations have been tagged with a GS or CTOP template over the years, and I doubt that's remotely the case, when you consider how broadly generously CTOPS tend to be applied. Still your results do help narrow the figures some I think. But even if the figure is one in four or one in five articles, that ought to be giving the community profound pause to consider the implications for the project, in terms of open access and user onboarding, among other important considerations. SnowRise let's rap 10:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Syria on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 03:30, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some RfA (requests for advice)

[edit]

Hey Snow Rise, I wanted to seek your advice for something. You may not know/remember me, but I'm what some would describe as regular contributor on ITN. My first nomination on ITN was a few months after I became an active editor on Wikipedia, and it was about the Tyre Nichols protests (January 2023). Like many ITN newbies, I was fairly shocked to see the level of opposition to what was a fairly obvious story in the news, including the basis of arguments on essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT concerns. Towards the end of the end of the discussion, you left a pretty lengthy support response, in which you pretty much encapsulated my reaction to the broader discussion. Your post helped me realize that I wasn't crazy in seeing the discussion, and the broader ITN culture as crazy and helped direct me away from a temporary level of disillusionment.

Afterwards, I spent more time contributing to ITN, aiming to maybe wrestle in reforms, but as we all know, reform attempts at ITN have been futile. Tbf, it didn't help that I was a lot more uncivil back then. I saw, and still do see the ITN project as broken, but something not worth throwing away. I liked the idea, but not the execution. One of the big issues on ITN is the lack of admin involvement; you can see this in how many items go stale without posting and frankly in a lot of the broader culture of ITN (incivility, lack of will to ascribe weight to certain arguments due to [understandable] threats of being accused of WP:SUPERVOTING). Inspired by several discussions in 2023, I decided to run for adminship using the new election system during their trial in late 2024.

I largely ran my campaign soley on getting the adminship for ITN, which had been the advice of one editor on WT:ITN (can't find it in the archives, but it was likely in mid-2023) addressing the shortage. My campaign got shut down (second worst vote count for that year proportionally), and for a while I assumed it was due to a series of old redirects I had created years ago when I was still essentially a newbie, a lot younger, and wasn't taking Wikipedia as seriously as I am now. This kind of disillusioned me from the whole ITN process (and for a time the project), but I resumed regular activity after a period of reduced contributions. Looking at some of the mentions of my campaign, it appears there was at least one user that didn't like how I wanted to use adminship solely for ITN.

Even though I've only been active on ITN since the start of 2023, there have been multiple community wide discussions on ITN, many of which included significant discussion on dissolving the whole subproject. In addition, discussions on WT:ITN notoriously go nowhere. I'm again very passionate about ITN in theory, and I want it to be a lot better than whatever it is now, but it just seems like there's a fundamental lack of willpower on the part of the ITN regulars to put in energy; even discussions with a lot of consensus rarely go anywhere if it's not pertaining to a super basic change. Again, this is due to the broader ITN culture, as well as the fact that there are frankly few admins that have ITN as one of their sole focuses. With ITN on the gallows, and with the mid-year admin elections coming up, I was strongly thinking about throwing my hat into the ring again. The thing is that my previous electoral attempt burned me pretty bad, and although I like elections and prefer them over RFAs, by design, you get a lot less community input into what you need to do better. As an admin, and someone whose very fed up with the state of ITN as well (to the extent of somewhat inspiring me to continue being involved on it), I wanted to seek your advice. Should I run for adminship? What lessons should I learn from my October 2024 attempt? What should I do in preperation? Any and all thoughts are welcomed.

Thanks! — Knightoftheswords 21:19, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Knightoftheswords281: apologies for the slow reply: I saw this message a couple of days ago, but have been dealing with a serious, though thankfully temporary, medical issue in the family since about the same time, in addition to other responsibilities. But yes, I do remember you and recall something of the details of that cluster of disputes. I have to inform you however that, despite my focus on the back end and occasional contributions to administrative spaces. I'm still happy to provide my input for whatever it is worth--I do have a thought or two to share, if it would still be helpful. Bear with me just a little bit longer please. SnowRise let's rap 01:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Just get back to me when you're ready, m'kay? — Knightoftheswords 04:14, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Any feedback? — Knightoftheswords 19:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Knightoftheswords281: apologies for the absurdly slow reply. I have given your situation some thought each time I have checked my talk page the last little while, but even after that additional reflection, I must say most of what I have to relate occurred to me upon initially reading your request, so I might have spared you the wait. In any event I think your primary problem here is that your approach to candidacy, while undoubtedly rooted in a good-faith volunteer impulse, is putting you in an unfavourable light. It is of course not unheard of for a candidate to indicate an intention to focus on a small number of areas where they have experience and see a particular need. But here you have presented yourself as wishing to have the tools expressly to bring what you frame as an unruly situation in line. The situation at ITN has long been a contentious topic and you have been, in some sense, a 'partisan' in the disputes about how the space is maintained and how indidivudal editors conduct themselves and provide their input.
Now, as best I can recall your positions in those matters, I think your views are perfectly reasonable. But I can also see why some RfA respondents might view your self-identified focus on having the tools to address what you view as dysfunction in that space as an indication that you are putting the cart before the horse in terms of what is animating you here: that you want those permissions and the enhanced standing to try to enforce by fiat standards for conduct and process which you could not get support for through consensus within that space. I think there may be a concern that you would not be approaching your role in the neutral and disinterested manner we want in a mop. That's speculation, but if pressed to come up with an explanation for what caused your poor results, based on the few indicators you got, I would tend to suspect that this sense of potential gatekeeping or forced-reform through non-consensus process (which might unsettle some who even support your underlying positions at ITN) could have played a non-trivial role. And all of that also dovetails with another factor that plays a recurrent role at RfA; those who take the time to !vote often like to see well-rounded candidates, with a record of engagement in many areas and at least some degree of spread in where the candidate wishes to apply their functionary role.
So here's my advice, and I do appreciate that it reflects a frustrating paradox for you, given what animated you to consider being an admin in the first place. I would ask yourself, would you want to be an admin even if it meant never utilizing those tools within ITN. If the answer is no, I think you should consider not running again and continuing to try to reform ITN through persuasion, or just take the space off your radar altogether. If the answer is yes, I would suggest not only finding other areas to contribute to as an admin, increasing your competencies in those areas, and basing your candidacy on those, but also probably expressly committing to not functioning in an administrative capacity at ITN. I think, in terms of certainly appearing as a strong candidate, and possibly also actually being a good candidate, you should try to disentangle those ambitions from the ITN issues for which you have such well established strong feelings. Again, I understand this might erase the very raison de motivation for going through the whole rigamarole in the first place, but I think it might be necessary for you to present the image of impartiality and standing apart from the issues that is so much a part of the image that most of the community associates with a good admin.
Now, another factor: an election is, well, if you'll forgive my stating the obvious, a zero sum game. Well, not entirely zero sum when you have a pool of candidates for a pool of positions, but you take my meaning: you are competing against your fellow community members. And the election process generates just the tiniest fraction of express feedback for a candidate that a RfA does. So your results may not even reflect dissatisfaction with your positions, experience, or capacities and just could be a reflection of the greater amount of support for better recognized names. You just might be too few years in to get the mop through election, lacing the social capital of other candidates. Again, no cure for that but spread your energies around a little more and just generate a bigger profile. You might consider the possibility that, for where you are right now in your time with the project, you might have a better chance at succeeding at RfA than getting the bit via election.
But I also would consider whether you want to take a second swing so quickly through either route: while your one second-last result at the election can, in my opinion, be easily dismissed as at least possibly a statistical artifact of a crowded field, the more times you put yourself forward and don't succeed outright, the more likely that some parties paying short-shrift to their !voting decisions will ascribe arbitrary weight to the community's past 'verdicts' on your candidacy, even if some or much of lack of success was incidental to your going up against bigger names at a previous election, or a single issue (since addressed) that came up at a previous RfA. It can be as much or more a consequence of social psychology as the relative value of a candidate, but perennial campaigns can often lead to diminishing returns. So I'm not necessarily saying don't run this time: that decisions should rest on a lot of factors. I'm just saying give a lot of thought to timing and when you look best against the field.
Well, that's all I can think to observe at this juncture. If something more occurs to me, I'll let you know--unless you feel you've already heard enough! ;) I hope my position has not been dispiriting to you. My impression of you, from our limited interactions, remains a positive one. But I felt forthrightness about your possible weaknesses as a candidate (opposition research, if you will) would be more valuable to you in this context than discussion of your strengths--and seemed to be what you were looking for anyway. Best of luck to you and I'm here if you have follow up questions--though you know how slow and unreliable I can be in that department of late! SnowRise let's rap 04:31, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, having just reviewed some of your more recent activities in attempting to moderate the more inflammatory debates at ITN, I think it's worth saying that you appear to me to be a stabilizing influence irrespective of a mop. SnowRise let's rap 03:37, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Snow Rise:. I actually saw your comment a week ago when you originally made it and have spent the next week contemplating what you've said. After all that, I think I'm going to prolly sit this upcoming admin election out. I still think that having the administrative tools would help me a lot, just simply due to the longstanding issue of lack of admin availability on ITN, but I'll see what I can do without the mop. Additionally, I do understand and somewhat agree with the concern of "only being an ITN admin," and I think it would be better for me and the project, irrespective of adminship, to focus on other areas of the projectspace as well (and it will also hone in my social capital on WP). Perhaps I may run in the second admin election this year, depending on how this goes.
Again, thank you very much for this. My loss back in 2024 somewhat disillusioned me with not only ITN, but also my ability to enact change on the project more broadly, and I sincerely believed that my campaign mainly sunk due to those old redirects. I'll try my best to do what I can with what I have now. — Knightoftheswords 18:41, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:California genocide on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 04:30, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2026

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2026).

Administrator changes

added
removed

Checkuser changes

removed Giraffer

Oversight changes

added Kj cheetham
removed Giraffer

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the GSCASTE extended-confirmed restriction in the Indian military history case has been narrowed. It now applies to caste-related topics in South Asia, and the preemptive protection remedy has been amended accordingly.
  • The arbitration case Pbsouthwood has been closed.
  • The arbitration case Maghreb has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 7 April.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Gaza genocide sidebar on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 20:30, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Cedars-Sinai Medical Center on a "Economy, trade, and companies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 21:30, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

fyi, in case you've not seen them:

Thank you for looping me in on those discussions, Jheald. I will say, as regards the first, I don't think the way forward here is to continue to pester Hammersoft to unilaterally reverse their revdel. While I disagree with them on some aspects of their analysis--specifically that reliance on Earwig should be considered dispositive enough to suppress that much content without substantiating concrete instances of copy violations directly--it is clear to me from their commentary in that thread that they are applying their version of the precautionary principle to this matter. As an admin, they have both prerogative and responsibility to do so, and it appears to me that they have settled on what that requires of them in this instance, so pushing them further is counter-productive. As they have said, there remains the possibility of reversal from another admin or by result of consensus at ANI, and they are absolutely correct that there is no particular rush here. I am concerned about the possibility of LBW's enthusiasm for contributing here to be damaged in the meantime, which is one of the considerations that animated my last post at ANI, but it appears to me that at this point HS is themselves trying to mitigate that effect. I am cautiously optimistic this will all work itself out with the correct result, but in any event, I agree with HS that patience is called for.
Lawbookwriter, it appears from your comments on HammerSoft's talk page that part of what is making you anxious is that you don't have a local copy of your hard work, and you are concerned for it disappearing into the ether. In cases such as this, I have once or twice seen an admin being willing to recover and email content to an editor to ease that anxiety. Perhaps zzuuzz would be willing to do that for you in this case? Assuming they use email for project-related communications: not all users wish to, and I wouldn't want to speak for them. But some admin or another would be prepared to, I think. Just, do yourself a favour and do not replicate that content anywhere on-project until the relevant discussions are resolved in your favour--even for the sake of argument. I think that would go poorly for you. In any event, I meant what I said at ANI--although I think you have had some understandable stumbles, in the aggregate you appear to me to be a very welcome addition to our pool of contributors, and I hope that at the end of this process you will feel more a Wikipedian, rather than less.
Finally, regarding the TALK:COPYRIGHT discussion, it looks to me as if everything needing saying has been said, but if there ends up being a loggerheads, I will contribute my own insight. My appreciation as a fellow community member to all of you for approaching this situation with care and civility. SnowRise let's rap 23:44, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am deliberately not involving myself too much in this situation, as my time and availability are limited, and like others would expect things to happen slowly and carefully, but I can probably help out with the admin stuff such as emailing content and undoing rev-deletions (with suitable consensus and justification). Just give me a shout. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you zzuuzz--I suspect LBW will appreciate that quite a bit; I hope you don't mind me volunteering your name based on your measured input at the ANI. SnowRise let's rap 08:30, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Inside CECOT on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 14:30, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of paradoxes on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 21:30, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Quick thanks

[edit]

Just wanted to say I have deeply appreciated all your comments in relation to dealing with the Crown copyright issues. They have been insightful and helpful in pointing everyone involved in the right direction. Sasquatch t|c 02:23, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sasquatch--that is very kind of you to say--I certainly entered the discussion hoping to build a bridge, because I felt the issue had slightly spiraled out of some accidents of miscommunication and just slightly askew analysis. However, if I am perfectly honest, you and Jheald did far more in terms of detailing the particulars of the open question of law and the institutional history from which it spring. The two of you converged with my own prior understanding of the evolution of the issue of the applicability of Crown Copyright to judgments, but also filled in more than a couple of gaps as to particular statements from Crown authorities, and the overall timeline of the case law, which I previously knew of only as general ministerial or jurist positions, without always knowing, in several of those cases, who had expressed or qualified them, or precisely when. So I'm coming out of this discussion with a more robust understanding of the fine details of the dispute, thanks to the two of you and others in the discussion, like Rambler.
I'm very heartened that things look to be moving in a productive direction, even if there is quite a bit of research, possibly outreach, and certainly drafting to be done. My schedule is likely to be intense in the next few weeks, so you'll have to forgive if I am touch and go (an immediate family member in the hospital, and work already a bear before that), but please don't let that stop you from reaching out to tag me in for a share of the work, as things get along: I'll be on site as quickly as circumstances permit. :) SnowRise let's rap 03:35, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to hear that and hope they have a speedy recovery. I will definitely reach out - though I think we have come to an agreement on acceptable practice going forward on this issue (yay!). Sasquatch t|c 03:42, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you: we've gotten to be old hats at this dance around here, but we're cautiously optimistic about prognosis, pending further tests.
So, to make sure I am not missing any wrinkles in the final consensus, do we feel the practice of defaulting to the Supreme Court's own online index and other source points with the least onerous second-party notifications of rights wherever possible, and attributing to OGL will be sufficient, in those rare minority of cases where quoting has to be extensive enough that it is arguably not covered by the amount justified under the standard minimal NFC exceptions? SnowRise let's rap 03:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Destubathon of the Americas

[edit]

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:34, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lists of wars involving the United States on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 14:30, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Restore Britain on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 21:32, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol May 2026 Backlog drive

[edit]
May 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
  • On 1 May 2026, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2026

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2026).

Administrator changes

readded
removed

Interface administrator changes

removed L235
added Chaotic Enby

CheckUser changes

removed

Oversight changes

removed Moneytrees

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Changes to user permissions made from Meta are now included in the local user permissions log (T6055).
  • The autoconfirmed user group will soon be modified such that the four-day account age requirement begins when an account makes its first edit (T418484).

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case SchroCat has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case closed on 15 April.
  • Per a recent motion, appeals of blocks from the conflict-of-interest VRT queue are, by default, appealed on-wiki through the normal unblock process. However, they may be heard by the Committee if COIVRTers disagree on the interpretation of the evidence or believe ArbCom would be better suited to hear the appeal. Administrators are also advised that loosening or lifting such blocks without the consent of someone with access to the queue or ArbCom can be grounds for desysopping.
  • Per a recent motion, restrictions issued directly by the Committee may now be enforced with blocks which work exactly like contentious topic blocks.
  • The arbitration case Maghreb has been closed.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have a Bandicoot!

[edit]
Have a Bandicoot!
For remarkably quality participation at AnI, with well measured takes and well written prose. It's a pleasure seeing you around! MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 06:03, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@MEN KISSING: Oh my goodness, I'm so sorry: I completely missed this incredibly kind message! Thank you so much for the flattering and generous words, and I'm very sorry for the belated response: I was away for the better part of a month due to a family medical emergency and a resulting work backlog, and I had so many notices and pings when I got back that I guess I just didn't notice when the counter went up in the interface! But I really do appreciate it, and I very much return the sentiment! :) SnowRise let's rap 10:16, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

[edit]
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Michael Parenti on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 02:30, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol Newsletter - May 2026

[edit]

Hello Snow Rise,

New Page Review queue November 2025 - May 2026

Backlog update

At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.

After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.

2024 and 2025 NPP Awards

JTtheOG was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.

Hey man im josh and MPGuy2824 won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.

Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.

BoyTheKingCanDance, Rosiestep, SunDawn, and Vanderwaalforces were inducted into the NPP Hall of Fame for having two separate years of 2,000+ article reviews.

January–February backlog drive

The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.

May backlog drive

An article-only backlog drive is currently underway. We are hoping to make a big dent in the backlog. You can read more about it or join at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2026.

PageTriage

An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket if you're interested in following along.

Reminders:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]