Thanks!

Gramix13 has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{subst:cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Question from LunarByte (21:45, 15 April 2026)

Hey I want to contribute pages on topics I know. For example, I saw there are tons of pages related to fitness but very little on Pilates. How can I get started doing this? I am currently reading through help articles --LunarByte (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

@LunarByte: sorry for the late reply. As you see, I got sidetracked. Back to you: do you want to expand Pilates or write articles on subtopics of Pilates? Iseult ^Δx talk to me 18:52, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Both. I have already started on a couple. One related to the trademark lawsuit and I am working on pages on key people and equipment. Should I submit it via the wizard? LunarByte (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

LunarByte, I don't see those drafts in your contribution history, but feel free to submit your drafts to the Articles for Creation wizard at any time. Keep in mind that acceptance is not guaranteed. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 02:15, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 240, April 2026

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at four works Timeline: This month in military history

Page Move

You said the consensus was to move to Polandball, but you did not actually move Countryballs to Polandball Finnfrog99 (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Finnfrog99, despite my page mover permissions, Polandball is move-protected, so I can't effect the move myself. I have instead submitted a technical request. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 17:17, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Rudolf Bamler

@Iseult: noticing your revert, I was wondering if this file could be helpful.

A group of captured German generals from the National Committee "Free Germany" (NKFD) signs an appeal to Wehrmacht officers.

Translated this looks like:

Sitting, left to right:
Lieutenant General Hans Traut (Commander of the 78th Assault Division)
Major General Günther Klammt (Commander of the 260th Infantry Division)
Lieutenant General Kurt-Jürgen Freiherr von Lützow (Commander of the XXXV Army Corps)
Lieutenant General Rudolf Bamler (Commander of the 12th Infantry Division)
General of the Infantry Paul Völckers (Commander of the XXVII Army Corps
Standing, left to right: Lieutenant General Vincenz Müller (Commander of the XII Army Corps)
Lieutenant General Eberhard von Kurowski (Commander of the 110th Infantry Division)
Major General Alexander Conrady (Commander of the 36th Infantry Division)
Major General Gerhard Lindemann (Commander of the 361st Infantry Division)
Major General Herbert Michaelis (Commander of the 95th Infantry Division)
Major General Friedrich-Carl von Steinkeller (Commander of the Panzergrenadier Division "Feldherrnhalle")
Major General Gottfried von Erdmannsdorff (Military Commandant of Mogilev)
General of the Infantry Friedrich Gollwitzer (Commander of the LIII Army Corps)
Major General Claus Mueller-Bülow (Commander of the 246th Infantry Division)
Major General Adolf Trowitz (Commander of the 57th Infantry Division)
Major General Aurel Schmidt (Intelligence Chief of the 10th/9th Army)

Cheers. Lotje (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Lotje, indeed it is. I think we can pop it on Bamler's page, noting only his placement? Otherwise the caption will be very long. I also wonder if this is a better picture for NKFD. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 04:18, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I leave it up to you to insert and ad the caption. Cheers Lotje (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

O@Iseult: only me again. In the picture there are only 4 men seated but the description mentions 5. That is weird, don't you think so? Russian or German propagande at the time? Lotje (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Lotje, first, I get notifications from any non-bot edit to my talk page, so there's no need to ping me. But yes, we have a problem. I interpreted the third full person from the left as sitting, but then we run into issues with the standing row. The second full person on the right is, from his face and shoulder boards, Friedrich Gollwitzer, who is also wearing (presumably) his Iron Cross. But the caption implies that he's third? And Trowitz also won an Iron Cross.

There are eleven full standing people in frame. But the leftmost incomplete body would make it twelve. I can't yet puzzle out the left side from Iron Crosses, as both Kurowski and Konrady apparently have them.

The sitting group has less issues. The rightmost sitter is undoubtedly Paul Völckers. The person sitting to his right near the center of the picture has a Generalmajor's insignia, so probably Bamler. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 15:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to have pinged you. In the meantime, I (though red) categories to that image. Hopefully other images will turn up. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 April 2026

Question from Mr ram140298 on 99p (15:58, 22 April 2026)

Citizen --Mr ram140298 (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Question from BrendenAaronsonfan37 (18:13, 22 April 2026)

Hi! I got a little problem... For some reason,when I would edit,the edit would just disappear after like minutes... It's not my computer,and it's not me... The article would show that I edited,but after a couple of mins,it would just disappear... Could you help...? --BrendenAaronsonfan37 (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

BrendenAaronsonfan37, my initial thoughts are that you're either using edit preview instead of publish (unlikely, given that you have 179 edits) or that you're being reverted. Is this one of the edits you're having trouble with? Iseult ^Δx talk to me 20:36, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Nope,it's my 2025-26 Regionalliga edits (from the 21st and 22nd of April 2026)

No one undid my edits and I do press the "Publish edits" button,my edits are saved (in my edit count) but they get reverted for no reason (the edits still do remain on my edit count) BrendenAaronsonfan37 (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I did an edit on the 2025-26 Verbandspokal just now,may I update you if the issue repeats again...? BrendenAaronsonfan37 (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

BrendenAaronsonfan37, of course. I’ve screenshotted your changes. My current hypothesis is that Phanto is updating the article after you but not expressly reverting. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 18:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The issue is fixed! (somehow...)

But i'm glad that I can edit again 🙂 BrendenAaronsonfan37 (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Question from Source.history.wiki (18:28, 23 April 2026)

Hello, I am new here, and I need help with links. I edited a page about a high school and added a link to USNews.com. It did not accept it automatically, I added link as a manual one, but I do not know the publishing date. What should I do? It looks like the system does not like it. See ref 9 in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Knolls_High_School and also ref 10 in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_County_School_of_Technology --Source.history.wiki (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Source.history.wiki, I’m a little tied up at work right now, which restricts the amount of research I can do into those edits/complexity of edits I can make. I will look into this when I have time by the end of the week. Is that all right?

If you don’t know the publishing date, that should be fine. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 18:35, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. When you have a moment, please check that these manual links are fine. Nothing urgent. Source.history.wiki (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Source.history.wiki: the links seem fine and I didn't have any trouble removing the |date= parameter, so you're good to go; see these two edits of mine: Special:Diff/1350785766, Special:Diff/1350785774. That parameter is pretty flexible with dates, especially when unabbreviated; I've shifted it to an US ordering, as the topic of the article is unambiguously American. As a note for the future, per MOS:REFPUNCT, references generally go after punctuation. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 01:13, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Source.history.wiki (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Question from Source.history.wiki (01:27, 25 April 2026)

Hello, I have a question about adding links. I am working on this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasilyev_Brothers_State_Prize_of_the_RSFSR I cannot find any site/magazine in English, but there are a lot of pages in Russian. Can I link a page in Russian as a source to an English article? --Source.history.wiki (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Source.history.wiki, absolutely. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 02:13, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Source.history.wiki (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Question from CharlieEmily465 (23:29, 27 April 2026)

Hi! What are some tips for editing that you have? --CharlieEmily465 (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Succinctly, CharlieEmily465, be bold and receptive to feedback. But be bold. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 18:01, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2026 Backlog drive

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)

WikiCup 2026 May newsletter

The second round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 28 April. As a reminder for contestants who just joined or are unaware of recent changes to our round-points system, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. Peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 2 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points; nine scored over 500; and fourteen scored over 300. The top seven contestants had at least one featured article (two of them with two apiece). The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• MCE89 (submissions) with 1,333 points, mainly from good and featured articles about Australian people and geography
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,169 points, mainly from good and featured articles related to shipping ethics controversy in fanfiction, waterways, and Gu Yanwu
• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1,149 points, mainly from good articles, featured articles, and featured lists about figure skating, along with many article reviews and two good topics
• Olliefant (submissions) with 830 points, mainly from good and featured articles about television shows, episodes and media, along with nearly four dozen good and featured article reviews
• Gommeh (submissions) with 827 points, mainly from good and featured articles related to Genshin Impact and Honkai: Star Rail

The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 12 featured articles, 13 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 106 good articles, 22 good-topic articles and more than 40 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 3 In the News articles, and they have conducted over 200 reviews. The tournament points table has been updated.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. 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) 14:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Question from Tom Mall Lee (20:13, 29 April 2026)

Hello, I'm trying to get a handle on editing tables and am trying to look at pre-existing tables for examples of how to get them set up properly and when I do click to view the source code all I get is :

[{ Some Table Name}]

but where is the actual table code? Thanks. --Tom Mall Lee (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Tom Mall Lee, can you give an example of what tables on what articles you want to edit? I have a few theories but would like more information to help you best. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 21:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

One table I want to copy use as a template is this one but the code for the Specifications table is not visable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_Tesla Tom Mall Lee (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Tom Mall Lee, whenever you see a pair of doubled curly braces, that indicates a template. In this case, you'd go to Template:Nvidia Tesla. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 01:25, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red – May 2026

Women in Red | May 2026, Vol 12, Issue 5, Nos 358, 359, 370, 371, 372 Online events: New: Countries starting with G and H | Women's scientific works | Religion and Spirituality Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: Contest: Destubathon of the Americas Tip of the month: Struggling to find scientific works to write about? Start with review articles or textbooks, which may highlight influential studies, theories or methods by women. 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

--Chocmilk03 (talk 04:45, 30 April 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Swalwell

You reverted the move as per a WP:RMT, Special:Diff/1353105161 by User:Itcouldbepossible but this actually reverted the move made 2 days ago meaning the village is now at Swalwell and the DAB page is at Swalwell, Tyne and Wear. I'm assuming this was a mistake and the DAB should be at the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale, hmm. Itcouldbepossible, can you clarify what pages ought to have been moved where?

If this is a mistake owing to a move being executed before the move listed at RMTR goes through, then I’m happy to fix things. But we need to be very clear on what goes where, otherwise history gets really messy.

ICBP, I try, when using Move+, a fork of rmCloser, to move pages in an order that avoids destination ambiguity. Not trying to cast aspersions or denigrate the actions here, but I can’t figure out how to phrase my message. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 18:55, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The village in England was at the base name Swalwell until 2 days ago when it was moved to Swalwell, Tyne and Wear per Talk:Swalwell#Requested move 14 April 2026 and was moved by User:Annh07 so that the village was at "Swalwell, Tyne and Wear" and the DAB was at the base name "Swalwell". You have now moved the village back to "Swalwell" which it shouldn't be because there is consensus that it isn't primary but you have also moved the DAB page to "Swalwell, Tyne and Wear" which doesn't make sense. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale, ah. So the moves had already been effectuated even while the listing at RMTR stayed up. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 19:06, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes they had, I don't know why it ended up at RMT again, probably Itcouldbepossible made a mistake and though the moves hadn't been made. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok. I’ll revert when I get home in a few hours. In the meantime, I’d appreciate ICBD and Ang’s confirmations. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 19:20, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi everyone, sorry for the confusion here! I can clarify what happened.

I closed the RM correctly, but because I thought I needed technical help to move the disambiguation page, I listed it at WP:RMTR. I wasn't aware of the fact that Annh07 had already performed the page move, without closing the the move request. I think, my technical request was still lingering at RMTR and as Iseult ran their move script on pages that had already been moved by Annh07, which caused the script to scramble the pages into the wrong places. When I was on the point of closing the requested move, I was a bit confused because it said that the page already existed and hence I submitted a request at the technical moves. It is still a bit confusing, and I admit that I still don't understand where it went wrong and how it went wrong. Is it the fact, that all the necessary page moves had already been performed without closing the RM? Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 05:18, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Itcouldbepossible, looking closer at this move, I think that Annh fulfilled your request but then missed removing it from RMTR.. When I then tried to swap the pages, I saw that move in the history but didn't think much of it/got confused by the two moves requested in the RM. You seem to have done fine (does rmCloser automatically list at RTMR?). The fault, dear ICBP, is not in our stars, but in me. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 05:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I am not very sure about how rmCloser works. Yes, it does list pages at RMTR if required. But the script currently cannot handle the scenario where two RTMRs required (as it might have happened in this case). Dunno, I might have a look at the code if I get time later on. Thanks for your kind understanding! It is very easy to frustrate senior editors with wrong moves and other stuff like that. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 08:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

WikiSalon on Tues

By any chance, are you going to Event:Bay Area Meetup May 2026? I plan to go. Jasper Deng (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Jasper Deng, unfortunately not; I've always had issues with making weekday meetups, especially when most of the Bay Wiki meetings are held in SF. Even when I spent a lot of time in the East Bay, it proved impossible. Now, well, with RTO and me being two hours away, it'll probably not happen in the near future (got a job for me in Oakland?). But I'd love to do wiki meetups and get to know you in person. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 05:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Coordinate with me privately over email if you'd like to meet privately separately. I'm pretty flexible with where and when I can be. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:19, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Revert yourself at talk Gaza Genocide

Could you revert your edit please. No one asked you to decide the point and extraordinary claims should not be stuck in especially on rather fraught topics like that. NadVolum (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@NadVolum it was listed at WP:CR. Katzrockso (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Well he shouldn't have done it. Leave it to some admin if you must. NadVolum (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean I shouldn’t have done that? Discussions were open close to 30 days. That’s long enough time. Since your last comment on 28th April - no one responded. So yah - I listed it for closure. 🐈Cinaroot   01:35, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Anyway the point as I see it is that two other people before me have removed the bit because what it said is extraordinary. There is just one real source, it attributes what it says to the workers retrieving bodies who use the term evaporation or vaporized for when they can't find a body where they think there should be one. No evidence has been given that this actually ever happens. The article makes claims about thermobaric bombs but neither I nor anyone else can find anything that supports what they say even though those type bombs have been around for a long time. I fail to see why they are so desperate to include it in the article, it doesn't really contribute to the topic except in shock value when the citation is read. It is a source of ridicule amongst their enemies so they stick to it is the best I can come up with. NadVolum (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Katzrockso; yes, I closed based on the CR listing, as you can see from my various other CR closures. NadVolum, per WP:NAC, I'm well within bounds. If your objection was to the compromise text, first, you had plenty of opportunity over the past two weeks to do that as opposed to continuing to litigate the extraordinary claim. You chose not to even while remaining active in replies to comments containing those propositions. which implied tacit agreement. Second, the compromise text does not contain the words "evaporated" or "vaporized". "Without recoverable remains" is a considerably lower bar too. You are disputing a situation which does not exist.

The claim of evaporation may be contentious and extraordinary. I consider it extraordinary (an aside: I read the AJ article as having misinterpreted the Gaza Civil Defence quote — treating bodies as evaporated does not mean considering them evaporated. Unless you're saying that the claimed dead aren't actually dead? The very next section in the article describes how bodies are turned quickly to ash. Hardly evaporation!). But at this point, there's only one person keeping up the contention.

So, no, I will not revert given your comments in the thread. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 17:07, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

What I said was that what they were proposing was not a summary of the article, they were writing their own stuff which ignores most of the stuff in the citation. That is an objection to what is written. And the article says no sign except scraps of scalp or specks of blood. We don't know if the people found ash or if it is made up by al Jazeera, they just say people were turned to ash. And if this actually happened why is there no indication of it partially happening to anyone? There are so many ways to make it less extraordinary and yet none are satisfied. And I was not the only one complaining at the end, Alansohn has a comment saying it is the very definition of WP:EWCREE on 27 April near the end. I agree the original objector إيان disappeared after 10 April. Can't say I blame them when people push so far for supid things like this. Why does this need to be in, what's wrong with waiting for some extra source or evidence that thermobaric weapons actually do things like make two people in a room completely disappear and leave the bodies of three? In fact any evidence thermobaric weapons do this vaporization business? Why can we not follow the policy? NadVolum (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@NadVolum do you disagree that the closer correctly evaluated the consensus of the discussion? If so, please explain the basis of doing so. Katzrockso (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes I do disagree. "Merely continuing the evaporation debate" dismissed the whole business about it coming under extraordinary. Attributing the statements to Al Jazeera does not absolve editors on Wikipedia from following WP:ECEE. They agree it is extraordinary and they are pushing it into the article complete with the reference to a citation saying "Israel used weapons in Gaza that made thousands of Palestinians evaporate". We don't even know if any of those thousands died or just they weren't found where expected. This is just an end run around core policy. NadVolum (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@NadVolum that is your right, but you cannot circumvent consensus by removing the content yourself against the declared consensus. Please self revert your removal on the Gaza genocide article and go through the typical process for initiating a Wikipedia:Closure review if you disagree with the close. Katzrockso (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

NadVolum, had you phrased your argument that way in the two weeks between the first proposition and my close, I might have weighed an ECEE argument more heavily. As it stands now, this all reads like reaching for reasons — any reason at all — to exclude mention of the use of thermobaric weapons.

Alan in the discussion has made a case far stronger than you have, and even so, I find the various counterpoints reasonable and the rough consensus to attribute to AJ, if included. IOHANNVSVERVS provided sources supporting both the use of thermobaric weapons and even something involving evaporation. Cinaroot (pinging, as they listed the discussion on CR to begin with) offered to and followed through on framing that didn't hew precisely to AJ as a compromise. Later, JasonMacker called you out for switching things up. Early in the discussion, Katzrockso had to clarify to you that BLP applies only to specified individuals. When the first proposal came out, you challenged the presumed use of thermobaric weapons. When the second proposal came out, you went straight back to vaporization.

If you think that further scrutiny of this thread and your comments there are warranted, appeal. Otherwise, drop the stick. Decide quickly, before I leave for vacation next week. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 01:15, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not override policy, and you said you found it extraordinary. And then you go and ask me to break policy by inserting a bit into the article which I removed. I do not see how breaking policy is supposed to do anything good or support Wikipedia. You could have done it yourself if you really believed that putting it in is a good idea. Anyway I'll do it and not get bothered with contending as that would be a situation like . NadVolum (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

You can challenge the closure at AN. See WP:CLOSECHALLENGE 🐈Cinaroot   04:22, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Question from Shanyl27 (04:11, 11 May 2026)

Hi, How do i create a wiki page for a person? --Shanyl27 (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Shanyl27, I'd start with reading through Help:Your first article. May I ask what person you are interested in writing about? Iseult ^Δx talk to me 05:02, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Azneen Rashad Maldivian, i have kinda create Shanyl27 (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Azneen Rashad (Maldivian Body Builder) Shanyl27 (talk) 08:36, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Question from Shakaa Saab .12."00 on Evolution (marketplace) (05:10, 12 May 2026)

Who creat this site --Shakaa Saab .12."00 (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Question from HanaJapan (09:17, 13 May 2026)

Thank you! I am working on improving the quality and quantity of information about Japan on wikipedia. I have trouble with formatting and how to site sources but will continue to work on it. I hope to gain enough experience to translate the existing articles in Japanese to English for other to read! --HanaJapan (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Question from Sonnylumens2026 (15:16, 13 May 2026)

Hey! I want to request a page, but I was having a really hard time following the instructions. I just want to request to have information about a company added. I've been trying to boost the AEO for our organization and having a page on Wiki would really help with that. Just information about the company, what the company does, a brief history etc. --Sonnylumens2026 (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Sonnylumens2026, as you have a conflict of interest with your company, you must first disclose that specific conflict. The second link contains instructions to do that; let me know if you have trouble there.

Then, you'd go to the talk page for the article and add {{edit COI}} to the bottom of that page, much as you have here. The best way to do that is to select "New section" near the top of the page. Instructions for using that template can be found here. The template adds your edit request to a queue where editors like me will fulfill the request, either accepting or rejecting the changes. What specific parts of the instructions that you referenced have you found confusing? I will clarify those to the best of my ability. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 18:33, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Question from BrendenAaronsonfan37 (13:04, 14 May 2026)

Hi! One of my irl friends found out about my wiki acc and he loves the work I do! 🙂 But,he really wanted me to do a user page... I have 2 questions... 1.How do you create a user page? 2.If I edit my user page,does it count on my total edits? --BrendenAaronsonfan37 (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

BrendenAaronsonfan37, 1) go to User:BrendenAaronsonfan37. 2) yes. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 18:10, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Newsletter - May 2026

Hello Iseult,

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:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Question from Chef Matt Lare (04:22, 15 May 2026)

Good evening, I am looking to get a new article written on myself. I have sources and information but I am so confused on how to go about all this. Is there any way to show me how this all works? Ive read the how-tos and all the pages but I am not good at this at all. --Chef Matt Lare (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Question from Odisaac (06:00, 15 May 2026)

Hello, what benefits do i get from editing --Odisaac (talk) 06:00, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Question from Djpanda1024 (21:10, 15 May 2026)

What are you for your my mentor what are you for --Djpanda1024 (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2026 (UTC)