On 28 mayo 2026, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Will Stanhope, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede60 07:49, 28 mayo 2026 (UTC)
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.
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.
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.
Hi, in looking over our edits from yesterday and today on the Never again page, I reverted two of your edits, and you reverted three of my edits. The first time I reverted, I reverted something where I thought you had made a mistake in your revert. I did not know before that red links are sometimes allowed, so I took out the red link a second time. I also left in your revert where you put back language that was not in the source, because in the end, it wasn't a big deal to me. Today I made two completely valid high-quality new edits, which were not reverts, and then you posted a threatening message saying I could get blocked for warring.
How can this be construed as anything other than you trying to indimidate me into not editing the page? You have 140,000+ edits, and that was very aggressive, and it's not acceptable for you to so cavalierly do something like this to a newer editor, as it's very chilling. Slava570 (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Slava570 I have no issue with edits that improve the page. I do have an issue with edits to the lead that don't reflect the article body and sources. (t · c) buIdhe00:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not the content of my edits, which I stand by. The issue is your behavior. If you post another intimidating message on my talk page after I make good faith edits, I will take it to the appropriate noticeboard. Slava570 (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So now it's intimidation to post appropriate warnings when users make problematic edits ?? I don't care if you edit the article only if the edits are improving it. (t · c) buIdhe17:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There was absolutely nothing problematic about the edits. They were done in good faith. And by the way, at least one of your reverts was problematic, as it was WP:OR, but it was something so petty that I didn't really care. If you have a disagreement about something, you can go to the talk page and discuss it. Going straight to my user page and threatening to have me blocked is intimidation. I hadn't even reverted you the three times that I'm allowed, and again, one of my reverts was something I thought you had mistakenly reverted, the red link. You call that warring? Maybe you're so invested in the article that you perceive any minor change as an attack on you personally. That is not fair.
I plan on editing the page more in the future, and you don't own the place. I'm happy to discuss any differences of opinion about the content of the article on the talk page, though. Slava570 (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually all of your edits would be considered reverts, as they removed content that had earlier been added to the article in previous edits by other editors.
I have no way to read anyone's mind but it's hard to see how someone could have made the edits that you did with the stated justification if they had just taken a look at the article and its sources. I do expect that all contributors to WP only make edits if they have sufficient familiarity with the sources to represent the topic accurately. (t · c) buIdhe23:28, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually all of your edits would be considered reverts this is absurd, and maybe it gets to the heart of this conflict. No, all edits to a page are not reverts. If that were the case then the rule would be you could only make three edits to an article per day, since they are all reverts. That's clearly not the case. Wikipedia:Reverting says, for example, Alice re-phrases the wording in the first paragraph of an existing article [is] A normal change, not a reversion.
My justifications were all clearly written in my edit summaries. For example, in this edit [1] I wrote "closer to source." That's because I actually went into the source and found that the author did not say "believed to be" but "was." You then reverted and replied [2]it's impossible to say if the phrase could have been used earlier This is your original reserach, not what the source said. Stop trying to imply that I have no familiarity with the topic. If you have a disagreement, from now on we need to start on the talk page. Slava570 (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Adding original content that you just wrote to a page is never a revert. Removing content is likely considered a revert. Modifying could go either way depending on context, but this example can be considered a partial revert because it removes content that a previous editor added. this edit of yours is definitely a revert of this previous edit. There is no obligation to slavishly follow the wording of the cited source, although in the case you claim is "original research" it might be better to explicitly attribute the source for the claim. Ask on an appropriate noticeboard if you don't believe me. (t · c) buIdhe17:16, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that it lost GA status back in March. Sorry to hear that. You've put up so much work in that article so I hope that it'll regain its GA status sometime in the future. Vacant0(talk • contribs)16:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to hear from you Vacant0. I am not nearly as active as I used to be since I'm out doing fun things like climbing this mountain (t · c) buIdhe14:28, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I came to see if you were unaware of the principles governing contentious topics articles. As it seems you are, I am quite surprised by this edit. There is a talk page section where the change I made was proposed and is being discussed. You are invited to participate in it, and bring sources to discuss. Tiamut (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw the discussion, and as I stated in the edit summary, it doesn't seem that you have consensus for the edit. (t · c) buIdhe23:37, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The ethnonational wording was introduced without a discussion. I opened a discussion asking the rationale for its use and when none was provided, after presentinf and reviewing the sources, I changed it. The two editors who were discussing there with me after the change raised questions but did not oppose the change. Only the non-confirmed editor did. As you know they cannot edit such articles. When they made a request to change the wording (without providing any new sources), I declined. Then you came along and reverted my edit citing talk. You did not inform the editor of the contentious topic restrictions either.
In your post you stated I would like to change "ethnonational" to "national, thus implying that the former was the stable version. (t · c) buIdhe18:17, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Barrett (climber) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.
Hello, Buidhe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Max Täubner, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Maynard (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Sam Haselby requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator.
Hello, Buidhe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Max Täubner, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
