User Talk: Dajasj

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Re November 2024 Amsterdam Attacks

Do you think any of this ↗ warrants inclusion in the article? I realized later (after another editor shut down my discussion) that I failed to state my request explicitly (though I thought it was pretty clear). In particular, I felt the statement by the Amsterdam City Council member deserved mention.

--'''ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ''' 22:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

:I don't think so. This person is not impartial and I have not seen this description of events in reliable Dutch sources. I believe we should follow them instead of individual accounts Dajasj (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::With respect, virtually none of the people whose statements ''are'' included in the article can plausibly be described as "impartial." --'''ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ''' 23:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Sure, but the description of events was not picked up by reliable sources. So that casts some doubt over the statement. Dajasj (talk) 06:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::There is an interview to the Amsterdam City Council in aljazeera ↗ which also in mentined in Anadolu Agency ↗, here you have the links (1) ↗ and (2) ↗. I have included them in the reference to the councilmen in the page. I am happy to discuss if needed. AyubuZimbale (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Systematic EL removal

WP:EL ↗ violations are often useful as references. Please don't systematically remove them without considering such alternatives. ~Kvng (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

:Hi @Kvng, thanks for your comment. I try to consider them and I often turn them into references, but I see I might have been too quick with the Telecommunications in Nepal page. Dajasj (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

In this edit ↗, you removed external links that would ''not'' have been useful as references. But they had some value all the same. Here ↗'s where I've taken the article. (It's still terrible, of course.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Hoary, thanks for your reply! However, I believe this is not what notes are for and still violates WP:EL ↗. If deemed relevant, I believe they should be placed in the External Links section. Kind regards, Dajasj (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

::Well, that's a surprise. WP:EL ↗ is a long page; but when I searched within it for the strings "efn" and "notelist", I found nothing. There are tokens within [WP:EL of "note", but none of them seems relevant here. Meanwhile, Template:Efn/doc ↗ doesn't seem to say anything relevant. Where's the problem with these notes? (Of course they are not references, they cannot be references, and the article needs references.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::<nowiki>#1</nowiki> of WP:ELPOINTS ↗ specifically mentions inline references and citations as the only allowed external links in the body of the article. Because they are specifically excepted from the rule, I conclude that notes (when not referring to references) are not allowed.
:::But setting aside the rules. Do we want all external links moved to notes? Especially the Barganews one is problematic. Every entity mentioned might get a note with a link to the homepage of the company. It will create a lot of spam, which I have been trying to remove.
:::I truly believe we should limit external links to a small external links section and the references. Allowing more, will just create a opening for link spam and rarely help our readers. If they want to look up more about Barganews, they have the option to use a search engine. Dajasj (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
{{od}} I agree with you on the Barganews note. I added it with no enthusiasm and a few minutes ago happily deleted it. I find WP:ELPOINTS ↗ ambiguous on the matter of external links in notes. Perhaps you and I fundamentally disagree about the desirability of external links in general. But we probably have points of agreement. Certainly I have no time for "references" to articles when these "references" just provide supplementary info about the subject of the article. If the supplementary info is worthwhile, however, I'm happy if relevant, non-promotional external links appear in notes. Among my own creations, the one that has most recently been subject to examination and criticism is Stephan Vanfleteren ↗. As you can see, this is stuffed with notes that have external links. The article has been changed quite a bit since I last tinkered with it, but the notes are mostly (though not all) mine. Now see Template:Did you know nominations/Stephan Vanfleteren ↗. That was quite an ordeal (though it was fair). It had no criticism of the notes. Indeed, notes containing external links are common in what I produce, and they haven't yet been problematic. (Try for example Atsushi Fujiwara ↗, discussed in Template:Did you know nominations/Atsushi Fujiwara ↗.) .... And again, none of this is intended to defend the ''article'' on Viviano, which is most unsatisfactory. -- Hoary (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:I agree that we fundamentally disagree on the desirability of exernal links. Personally, I disagree with how notes are used. Especially the use of links for publisher's websites, given that ISBNs are also present and link indirectly to websites that give more information about the book.
:I don't think the two of us will reach consensus on this issue. I have no intention to revert it and my priorities have shifted away from external links right now. However, if we want a clarification, we could ask for more participants at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard ↗. Dajasj (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Non-attributed translations

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Thank you for your contributions ↗ to Wikipedia. It appears that you translated text from :nl:Nellien de Ruiter ↗ to :Nellien de Ruiter ↗. While you are welcome to translate Wikipedia content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing ↗ '''requires that you provide attribution''' to the contributor(s) of the original article. When translating from a foreign-language Wikipedia article, this is supplied at a minimum in an '''edit summary ↗''' on the page where you add translated content, identifying it as a translation and linking ↗ it to the source page. Sample wording for this is given here ↗. If you forgot, or were not aware of this requirement, attribution '''must be given retroactively ↗''', for example:
: <code><nowiki>NOTE: Content in the edit of 01:25, January 25, 2023 was translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at :fr:Exact name of French article ↗; see its history for attribution.</nowiki></code>
Retroactive attribution may be added using a dummy edit ↗; see Repairing insufficient attribution ↗.
It is good practice, especially if translation is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{tl|translated page}} template on the talk page of the destination article. If you have added translated content previously which was not attributed at the time it was added, you must add attribution retrospectively ↗, even if it was a long time ago. You can read more about author attribution and the reasons for it at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia ↗. Thank you.  – '''DreamRimmer''' ('''talk''') 17:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:@DreamRimmer, thanks. I should've been more specific with that article, I had not realised others had changed it as well. I also thought the template on the Talk page was enough. Besides this article, please note that I have also translated many of my own articles with no contributions by others. Dajasj (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::I have also seen your list, please give me a day. Most of them have been made for enwiki or are translations of my own work. Where this does not apply, I will fix it. Thanks for notifying me. Dajasj (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::No problem. I've added a list to your sandbox ↗. Please check and attribute any that aren't done yet. I did some. You can leave the articles that are solely your work. – '''DreamRimmer''' ('''talk''') 17:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thanks again for notifying me and giving me time to resolve the issue. It has made clear that I should have been more precise in my attribution. I have fixed this for the articles you listed, and will double check the other articles I have made.
:::Fixed (one way or another, mostly extending the attribution from talk page to edit history):
:::* Nellien de Ruiter ↗
:::* Diggy Dex ↗
:::* Polarisation strategy ↗
:::* 2021–present Binnenhof renovation ↗
:::* Nolens Doctrine ↗
:::* Annie Meijer ↗
:::* 1981 Dutch cabinet formation ↗
:::* 1921 Dutch cabinet formation ↗
:::* Night of Schmelzer ↗
:::* Diplomatic mission of the Netherlands to the Holy See ↗
:::* List of motions of no confidence in the Netherlands ↗
:::* 1999 Dutch cabinet formation ↗
:::* 1901 Dutch cabinet formation ↗
:::* Parliamentary inquiry into the COVID-19 pandemic ↗
:::* List of Dutch cabinet formations ↗
:::* May–June 1982 Dutch cabinet formation ↗
:::My own work (either here or on wiki)
:::* Plofsluis ↗
:::* List of candidates in the 2023 Dutch Senate election ↗
:::* List of members of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands for the Christian Democratic Appeal ↗
:::* 1948 Dutch cabinet formation ↗
:::* 1849 Dutch cabinet formation ↗
:::* Issue ownership ↗
:::* 2021–2022 Dutch cabinet formation ↗ (no attribution was missing here)
:::Dajasj (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Thank you for doing this. I really appreciate it. – '''DreamRimmer''' ('''talk''') 01:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

January 2025 NPP backlog drive – Points award

{| style="border: 2px solid gray; background: #fdffe7;"
| rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: top;" | 100px ↗
| rowspan="2" |
| style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em; color: black" | '''The Invisible Barnstar'''
|-
| style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray; color: black" | This award is given in recognition to Dajasj for accumulating at least 5 points during the January 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 16,000+ articles and 14,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 19,791.2 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
|}

DOGE Page

Hello,

You keep deleting paragraphs on the page without checking if you delete information. Yesterday I had to chase down the citations and add them to the table. You are doing the same this morning.

Also, by your logic any contextual information can be deemed irrelevant, and thus be deleted from any entry. That's not how topicality works. More so that it is you who asked for context!

Restructuring a section should not work by destroying information. It burdens others to find it back by monitoring the page's history.

Selbsportrait (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:Hello. Thanks for contacting me about this. What I had been doing, is removing information that is already in its entirety in another part of the article. I had not seen that Alito was missing for Kmiec, so sorry for that. The table already had references, so I assumed they covered all facts in the row and so the other references were not needed. I also removed references that are re-used in other parts of the article, but I was aware that a bot would rescue them.
:I'm not against contextual information. As you can see, there are paragraphs I have not removed, because they contain information or context not suitable for the table. However, as I noted on the Talk page, the article is already long and the organisation has only existed for three weeks. Avoiding duplication is the low-hanging fruit in an effort to keep the article of reasonable size for readers. Dajasj (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
:I saw your later addition to your comment. At this stage, it was not my intention to remove information. I only removed what was duplicated. That is also part of Wikipedia. It is of course unfortunate that I overlooked something small. But otherwise, I still stand by my deletions, and as far as I can see, they have not been undone? Dajasj (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
::I came here instead of undoing them. I know where the information is, and will add it later.
::I don't mind if you want to shorten the section, in fact if somebody can rewrite it for me that'd be great. The aim would be to present the formation of DOGE, and then leave the reader to the table.
::The main problem is that the ProPublica list does not mention its own sources. Another is that not everyone wants to toy with the table. So the section needs to be written so that it evolves dynamically, with every editor doing a different task. My main is to find citations. Selbsportrait (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
:::Do I understand you correctly that the only problem is removing the references? If all goes well, the table should already contain all the references to source all the statements in it. It seems to me that ProPublica not indicating what its sources are is also not a problem. After all, ProPublica is reliable enough, right? So keeping other sources (from duplicated parts of the article) doesn't seem necessary to me either. Wikipedia:Citation overkill ↗ also doesn't seem to be the intention. Dajasj (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
::::Let's walk you through an example. Here is one para you deleted:
::::The ''New York Times'' reported that Brian Bjelde, a SpaceX ↗ employee, and Anthony Armstrong, a banker involved in the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk ↗, had both been appointed senior directors at the Office of Personnel Management ↗ (OPM)."ref name=Wolf/"
::::Here is the table entry:
::::|{{sortname cell|Brian|Bjelde|nolink=1}}
::::|Senior Adviser
::::|OPM ↗
::::|SpaceX ↗, Twitter ↗
::::|Known as a "top DOGE lieutenant"
::::|"ref name="propublica-doge-list"/"
::::|-
::::If we go to the ProPublica list, we don't have the citation, we have a different CNN source (Hadas Gold). And there are notes missing to the table.
::::The same goes for Amstrong.
::::As I see it, it'd be better to preserve the real source of the information provided, and not simply rely on ProPublica's list. Ideally, in fact, we should introduce the table as "ProPublica's Tracker" and stop citing the page on every single line.
::::Do you understand where I'm coming from a little better? Selbsportrait (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::I think I understand what you mean. However, I see no reason to keep another source, if one is already provided (unless it is challenged). If you think there are better ones, feel free to replace the references. But I can't promise I will do it, because references are not a goal on its own, but an instrument for verifiability.
:::::I'm also against renaming the table to ProPublica Tracker. What if other news media report on an employee. (I'm also against the table altogether, as I have noted on the talk page). Dajasj (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::"I see no reason to keep another source": The source kept wouldn't contain the information in the table. Each piece of information from each cell could have a different source.
::::::Either that table is the tracker, or it's the tracker with more information. If it's the tracker, why keep it on the page? Better to simply cite the original page.
::::::But the question is now moot, as people started to add information in the table from elsewhere. Selbsportrait (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::If there is information in the table and no reference with that information in the row, then verification fails. But that is separate from my removal of duplicate information. Dajasj (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Your removal of duplicate information comes at the cost of removing new information, with their source. The example above made that clear. Selbsportrait (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I had not removed information? At most I have removed references, which contents in terms of verifiability were also duplicate. Because the name, former employee, goverment agency and general context was already included in the table. Dajasj (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes, you did remove information.
::::::::::Compare the paragraph with the table entry. Selbsportrait (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Can you be more specific? What specific information was lost in the Bjelde & Armstrong case? Dajasj (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::"The New York Times reported that Brian Bjelde" - where is that now?
:::::::::::A citation *is* information. It's not a mere carrier of information. The trace by which the information has appeared on the page (and in the public sphere) is lost. One of ProPublica's own sources for "the press" that calls Bjelde a "lieutenant", most probably. Selbsportrait (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::The fact that NYT reported it, is irrelevant (in the long run). No one is going to read the page from top to bottom if every sentence starts with "The New York Times reported". So I don't regret the removal of that. The goal of a citation is verifiability. There was no problem with the verifiability of the facts in the article, because a reliable source as used, so no information was lost.
::::::::::::Anyway, I think we have to agree to disagree. DOGE isn't my focus, so I will probably not be active there often. If I remove something, feel free to check the edit and restore any references you want. My main focus will be on verifiability. Dajasj (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::::The fact that "the NYT reported" comes from the CNN citation that you eliminated. PP read CNN, which read NYT. Cutting CNN out of the loop removes access to NYT. It also undermines PP's source.
:::::::::::::If you want to elide information, at least consider leaving a trace of how readers can find it back! With the CNN citation in the table, readers can easily find back the report:
:::::::::::::https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/29/us/politics/elon-musk-trump-administration.html
:::::::::::::It's easier to remove information when the network of source is preserved. Selbsportrait (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Dirkzwager

Hello! Quick question, why did you accept Dirkzwager ↗? It has one source, which isn't enough to establish notability in my opinion. It is very well written. I am not very familiar with AfC so I might be wrong. I am not trying to be rude, just wondering. Cheers, '''''CF-501''''' Falcon (talk · contribs ↗) 19:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @CF-501 Falcon, thanks for your question. I am new to this as well, so feedback is welcome. While the article includes only one inline reference, the article mentions five sources in Bibliography. This was enough for me to assume notability. I also assumed they are the sources for the unreferenced parts (and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions#General_standards_and_invalid_reasons_for_declining_a_submission ↗ allows articles with general references). Hope that explains my decision. Dajasj (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
::Huh, I didn't know that. Sorry for bothering you. I want to become an AfC reviewer, so thank you for the link. Best, '''''CF-501''''' Falcon (talk · contribs ↗) 20:10, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
:::No problem, I was also a bit confused at first ;) (Given that I see other reviewers being more strict) Dajasj (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

The World Destubathon ↗

You are invited to participate in The World Destubathon. It's currently planned for June 16-July 13, partly due to me having hayfever during that period and not wanting to run it throughout July or August in the hotter summer and will be run then unless multiple editors object. There is currently $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. As 250 countries and entities is too much to patrol, entries will be by user, but there is $500 going into prizes for editors covering the most countries. Sign up if interested! ♦ ''Dr. Blofeld'' 13:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

August 2025

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to :Battle of Chora ↗. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments ↗ to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview ↗ button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in red at the top of the page. Thanks. '''Zackmann''' (Talk to me ↗/What I been doing ↗) 17:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

mb pluh

ty for the heads up about geert and his ''partij''. I am not Dutch so I wouldn't have a clue and should probably stick to my own country's politics 😭🥀💔 from Piperium (chit-chat, i did that ↗) at 12:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

:don't look at the revision history i promise i know how to type from Piperium (chit-chat, i did that ↗) at 13:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
:It's fine to read about Dutch politics and contribute, but don't forget to read a bit of the article ;) Dajasj (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

1956

Knew you deleted that thread but just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. @ that source, in "Gisteren, 07:49", it says: "Het verschil in zetels (en stemmen) tussen de grootste partijen is sinds 1956 nog nooit zo klein geweest. Sinds dat jaar telt de Tweede Kamer 150 zetels." This translates to: "The difference in seats ('''and votes''') between the largest parties has not been this small since 1956. Since that year, the House of Representatives has had 150 seats."   '''Jalapeño'''   ''(u t g)'' 12:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, it was correct, but I was confused because 1952 was the last time two parties won. Although I realise now that linking to 1956 is not ideal, because they changed to 150 seats later in the year iirc Dajasj (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Promotion of List of members of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands, 2023–2025 ↗

{{ivmbox
|image = Cscr-featured.svg
|imagesize=60px
|extracss=font-size:1.25em; font-family:Georgia;
|text = Congratulations, Dajasj! The list you nominated, '''List of members of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands, 2023–2025 ↗''', has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The '''nomination discussion ↗''' has been archived.{{parabr}}This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it ↗ to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, {{user0|PresN}} via FACBot (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
}}

Creating bare url refs

Hello. When you do this ↗ sort of edit, could you format the reference properly rather than leaving it as a bare url? Cheers, Number 57 ↗ 22:51, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

:Hello, I will try to do that more if I do it in the future. It is however nevertheless an improvement over what it was before. Kind regards, Dajasj (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks. And I disagree that it's an improvement, plus you're creating work for other people (someone has been going round tagging them as bare urls). Number 57 ↗ 12:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Rob Jetten ↗

How is this edit ↗ by ~2026-12065-37 ↗ not vandalism ↗? The fact that Rob Jetten ↗ is the first openly gay person to serve as the Prime Minister of the Netherlands ↗ is perhaps the single most widely reported fact about him in the press and media. ~2026-12065-37 ↗ has made multiple edits that either completely remove (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Jetten&diff=prev&oldid=1340053216 ↗ and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Jetten&diff=prev&oldid=1340061033 ↗) or minimize (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Jetten&diff=prev&oldid=1340023770 ↗) this widely reported fact. Justthefacts (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

:Hello @Justthefacts, this is entirely my fault. I thought the anonymous user added the fact, and you removed it, but it was the other way around. Sorry for the inconvience and thanks for bringing this to my attention :) Dajasj (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

::@Dajasj Ah, glad to hear that it was merely a simple mistake! Not to worry! We are all human after all! :) --Justthefacts (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

::@Dajasj ~2026-12065-37 ↗ unfortunately appears to be persisting in their behavior ↗. See this discussion also involving @Adakiko --Justthefacts (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2026 Backlog drive

{| style="border: 2px solid #36c; border-radius: 4px; background: linear-gradient(to right, #ffffff, #eaf3ff); padding: 10px; color: #000;"
| style="vertical-align: middle; font-size: 130%" | May 2026 Backlog Drive ↗ | '''New pages patrol ↗''' 
| rowspan=3 | right|100px ↗
|-
|

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 ↗'''.

|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|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) 11:23, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Writer's Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For expanding Drie Weken Huisknecht ↗ and many other contributions to the Dutch domain at Enwiki! gidonb (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
|}

:Hi @Gidonb, thank you for the barnstar, and also ofcourse your input in all the AfD's :) Dajasj (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Newsletter - May 2026

<div style="border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px">

Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},

thumb|400px|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'''

74px|left ↗{{no ping|JTtheOG}} was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.
{{no ping|Hey man im josh}} and {{no ping|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.

{{no ping|BoyTheKingCanDance}}, {{no ping|Rosiestep}}, {{no ping|SunDawn}}, and {{no ping|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 {{no ping|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.

{{refbegin}}
'''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 ↗.

{{refend}}
</div>

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

Re: Ferdinand Grapperhaus wikilink

Hi! I saw you recently undid my edit ↗ on Ferdinand Grapperhaus ↗' page. As I edited two wikilinks within that edit and the issue was only with one, I have edited the other wikilink again. Anyways, as you might have noticed, the issue with using WP:ILL ↗ is that Ferd Grapperhaus ↗ redirects to Ferdinand Grapperhaus ↗, creating a loop. That's why I used an unusual syntax to present only a link to the Dutch page for Ferdinand Grapperhaus' father (who was also called Ferdinand "Ferd" Grapperhaus). Do you know any ways to solve this? Have a nice day :) BilabialTrill (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hi, thanks for reaching out! I haven't seen the other link edit, my bad. Anyway, I think my latest edit solved the issue! I assume the article will have that name anyway, because the structure on nlwiki is weird Dajasj (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:EWN ↗

As you have not been notified by the reporter, there is a thread about you at WP:EWN ↗. — '''Czello''' ''(music)'' 08:56, 3 June 2026 (UTC)