W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: Metallurgist

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

<!-- {{Ct/aware/all}} -->
<div style="display:none;">{{Contentious topics/aware
|<!-- Armenia-Azerbaijan -->a-a
|<!-- Arab–Israeli conflict -->a-i
|<!-- Abortion -->ab
|<!-- American politics -->ap
|<!-- Article titles and capitalisation -->at
|<!-- Biographies of Living Persons -->blp
|<!-- Complementary and Alternative Medicine -->cam
|<!-- Climate change -->cc
|<!-- Infoboxes -->cid
|<!-- COVID-19 -->covid
|<!-- Balkans or Eastern Europe -->ee
|<!-- Falun Gong -->fg
|<!-- Gun control -->gc
|<!-- Gender and sexuality -->gg
|<!-- Genetically modified organisms -->gmo
|<!-- Horn of Africa -->horn
|<!-- Iranian politics -->irp
|<!-- Kurds and Kurdistan -->kurd
|<!-- Pseudoscience and fringe science -->ps
|<!-- Race and intelligence -->r-i
|<!-- Historical elections -->rne
|<!-- South Asia -->sa
|<!-- The Troubles -->tt
|<!-- Yasuke -->ya
}}</div>

<div style="margin: 5px; border: 2px solid var(--color-base, #202122); width: 90%; padding: 5px; background-color: var(--background-color-progressive-subtle, #f1f4fd); margin: auto; border-radius:15px; color:var(--color-base, #202122);" id="usertalk">
<div style="font-weight: bold; font-size:large; text-align:center;">Welcome ↗ to my talk page! Please be civil and not rude or insulting. Thanks.
</div>72px|left ↗

</div>

{{Archives|banner=no|search=no|1={{yearly archive list}}}}

Pending changes reviewer granted



right|130px ↗
Hello. Your account has been granted the "{{mono|pending changes reviewer}}" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits ↗ on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges ↗, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages ↗.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

''See also:''
asilvering (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you @Asilvering! This will help a lot. Metallurgist (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
::Happy reviewing! -- asilvering (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
:::@Asilvering Looking at things now, I seem to have mixed this up with the talk page edit requests. Is that a separate right to get the list to review? "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request" is what the talk page discussions say. Thanks. Metallurgist (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
::::I don't think you need any special permissions to handle those - are you experiencing problems when trying? Just extended confirmed should do it, and you have that. -- asilvering (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::@Asilvering Ah ok, is there a link that compiles them? It seems so because I have seen random editors respond to them. I havent found such a list yet. Metallurgist (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::Does the section at the bottom of WP:ER ↗ answer your question? There are various tables and categories to find edit requests in. There's also a helpful userscript, can't recall what it is. @Rusalkii? -- asilvering (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::::There's User:Terasail/Edit Request Tool which helps you answer requests (I do recommend it) but I don't think that's what you're looking for. The lists are at User:AnomieBOT/PERTableHeader: you should be able to answer the semi, extended, COI, and most partial ones. <span style="color:#1C7E85"><b>Rusalkii</b></span> (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Yep, that's the script I meant! -- asilvering (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Great, thanks to both of you!! @Asilvering @Rusalkii Metallurgist (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Hostages list



Hello. A good resource you can use for List of Gaza war hostages ↗ is hopeforhostages.com. It provides ages, nationalities, and where they were kidnapped from. Do note that the ages given for the living hostages are their current ages, so you'll have to subtract 2 years for their age when kidnapped.
Another resource for where each hostage was kidnapped from is oct7map.com 2600:1700:7558:1890:19E1:7A0F:F3B6:6FA3 ↗ (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

:There are templates we can use that work with the birthdate to calculate the age at kidnapping, but thank you for those suggestions. Metallurgist (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26



An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2025 Louvre robbery ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC News ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived



{| style="margin: 1em 4em;"
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| alt=Teahouse logo|link=w:en:WP:Teahouse|File:WP teahouse logo 2.png by User:Heatherawalls, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 ↗
| <div style="background-color: #fcfbed; color: #393D38; padding: 0.4em 1em; border-radius: 10px; font-size: 1.1em;">
Hello '''Metallurgist'''! The thread you created at the Teahouse ↗, {{tq|What links here}}, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion ↗. If you have follow-up questions, please {{Edit |1=Wikipedia:Teahouse |2=create a new thread |section=new |preload=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Preload |preloadtitle=Follow-up to What links here ↗}}.

<small>
See also the help page about the archival process. ↗
The archival was done by {{noping|lowercase sigmabot III}}, and this notification was delivered by {{noping|KiranBOT}}, both automated accounts ↗. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{tlx|bots|deny{{=}}KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

<div><small></small></div>
</div>
|}
<!-- KiranBOTmsgID:1319483842 --><!-- User:KiranBOT/Teahouse_archival_notification -->

":Schmear ↗" listed at Redirects for discussion ↗


30px ↗
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schmear&redirect=no Schmear]</span> has been listed at redirects for discussion ↗ to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines ↗. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 4#Schmear}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> —<span style="font-family: verdana; color: navy;"><b>Myceteae</b></span><span style="visibility:hidden; color:transparent; padding-left:2px">{{zero width joiner}}</span>🍄‍🟫 (<span style="font-family: verdana;"><i>talk</i></span>) 17:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Ferret!



<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">100px|left ↗

BumblB645 has given you a ferret ↗! Ferrets promote WikiLove ↗ and hopefully this one has made your day much better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a ferret, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. <br />

Give someone a ferret by adding {{tls|Ferret}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
</div> BumblB645 (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics


{{collapse|{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to '''the Arab–Israeli conflict ↗''', a topic designated as '''''contentious ↗'''''. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>.

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

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

<p><strong>Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days ↗, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.</strong></p><p>Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics <em>procedures</em>, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard ↗ or you may learn more about this contentious topic ↗. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. </p>}}<!-- Derived from Template:Contentious topics/alert/first -->|Collapsed notice}} ''<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>''<sup><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b></sup> 11:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

:@TarnishedPath ...See banner at top? ← Metallurgist (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
::@HouseBlaster you had mentioned here ↗ that there would be no issue with hiding the CT aware under a collapse, but it appears to not have worked for Tarnished. I am wondering if there if I did something wrong or it didnt work. You can check back a few diffs to see how it was, but I have now switched to your method, altho I may adde a banner like you have so its not just coded. I know this was 2 months ago, but just thought of this possibly being an issue now. Thanks and happy new year. ←&nbsp;Metallurgist (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
:::Hmm. I will investigate when I get back to my computer :) <span style="display:inline-block;">House'''Blaster''' ↗ (talk • he/they)</span> 17:43, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
::::There was a bug in the code, which has now been {{fixed|fixed ↗}} :) <span style="display:inline-block;">House'''Blaster''' ↗ (talk • he/they)</span> 21:58, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Serious question..



Do you think there are NPOV issues in the Israel-Palestine space, particularly in the 'Gaza genocide' family of articles? I'm a reader, not an editor, but just curious.. &#126;2025-31558-13 ↗ (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message



<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2025/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1322757968 -->

New page reviewer granted



right|80px ↗
Hi Metallurgist, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right ↗ to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation ↗ tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed ↗. If you asked for this at requests for permissions ↗, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol ↗. Before you get started, please take the time to:


You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources ↗. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! <!-- Template:New Page Reviewer granted --> <b class="skin-invert" style="color:#795cb2; display: inline-block; transform: rotate(0.3deg)">Sohom</b> (<span class="skin-invert" style="color: #36c;">talk</span>) 04:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

:@Sohom Datta would you be able to extend me to the end of February for the backlog drive? Thanks! ←&nbsp;Metallurgist (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
::{{Done}} <b class="skin-invert" style="color:#795cb2; display: inline-block; transform: rotate(0.3deg)">Sohom</b> (<span class="skin-invert" style="color: #36c;">talk</span>) 14:24, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks



Thanks for the heads up and my apologies for removing the template! -Darouet (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

:@Darouet No worries. Just wanted to let you know. Its an easy thing to mess up. ←&nbsp;Metallurgist (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Anniversary Metallurgist 🎉



Hey @Metallurgist. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 20 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. :) -<span style="color:#990000">❙❚❚</span><span style="color:#339966">❙❙</span><span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#000"> GnOeee </span><span style="color:#006699">❚❙❚</span><span style="color:#339966">❙❙</span> ✉ 08:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Thoughts about your statements



When did archiving become a crime on Wikipedia? The page is already set to auto-archive every 30 days. Also, page moves are linked at the top of the talk page. Did I open another discussion after archiving? You’re implying that I archived the page to hide something or act in bad faith.

Can you explain how my RFC on Israel constitutes “POV pushing”? If Wikipedia has already reached a consensus that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza (as reflected in the Gaza genocide article), why is it suddenly considered improper to acknowledge the same on the Israel article? In what world thats POV pushing? Im not pushing my POV. Im trying to apply consensus equally and fairly.

Judges edit, not motives. Suggesting sanctions based on assumptions without evidence and insinuating i'm WP:SPA is really inappropriate.

ref : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_Metallurgist_2 Cinaroot (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

:@Cinaroot It isnt a crime, it just can be curious. Im not accusing you. Im just wondering. There are set auto archives for a reason, given some of the discussion may still be useful. You may have had a perfectly good reason to archive it. I just wondered why.
:Its already mentioned. Changing it does not seem to have any purpose. And its been noted by several people that we should probably have a global RFC on this. The genocide article consensus only applies to that page, altho like many editors, I presumed otherwise. A global RFC is probably a good idea just to have a clear stance, but there is also a case for localized consensus.
:I am judging the edits, but when the edits dont seem grounded in a neutral view, one has to wonder. If people find fault with your edits, it is best to pull back a bit and seek advice and more consensus. ←&nbsp;Metallurgist (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
::You accused me of POV-pushing and of forcing my views across PIA, yet you haven’t provided a single diff or any evidence. If you have concerns about the neutrality of my edits, just ask and tag the specific diffs before accusing me of POV pushing. If you look at someone through a critical lens, that’s all you’ll ever see. If you’re going to investigate someone, make sure you keep an open mind. Cinaroot (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

SPA-ness


The numbers come from this tool I'm trying to develop ↗ to help people identify extendedconfirmed gaming. It's a good point about the relevance of the set of articles when thinking about SPA-ness - the size of the set of articles in the topic area, the narrowness of an editor's attention. You can imagine a sorted histogram showing page name against the number of revisions an editor made to each page. The shape of curve will tell you something about SPA-ness. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

:I find this useful too, thank you.Halbared (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
:@Sean.hoyland interesting. I will have to play around with that. So it uses a curated set of articles? Or does it use projects? ←&nbsp;Metallurgist (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
::The model used is described in the ''''ECR pages strictly in PIA'''' and ''''any ECR page'''' in the Notes. Unlike the ARBPIA5 model that could use categories to look for all talk page ARBPIA related template presence and WikiProject template intersections (Israel+Palestine, Israel+Lebanon...), it doesn't include WikiProject intersections, not the deployed version anyway. The introduction of the decision code based template (which is used on many pages now) makes things a bit more complicated because we can't check for the presence of the decision code 'a-i' or relatedcontent=yes/section=yes without reading the talk page wikitext, which is a bit too slow for a tool like this. I'm hesitant to include WikiProject intersection information as its relationship to ECR coverage is a bit fuzzy, and the ECR stuff is really only there because the notion of 'gaming' presumably relies on the intent to edit pages covered by ECR. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Celtic/British iron bar currency



Both British Iron Bar currency and Iron currency have significant room for expansion and I have sources to hand. Just haven't done it yet. There are a lot of british iron bar finds that could be discussed and a suppressing number of groups have tried iron currency at some point or another. Celtic currency of Britain overlaps with the roman period and ancient usually means pre-iron age. Celtic still seems to be the most common term in this area even if its a bit questionable if the groups making it could reasonably be considered celts. So unless you have some plans for a broader rework I think its fine as is.©Geni (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

:@Geni Ok, thats why I wanted to check with you. I thought perhaps that was the case. I may add to them when I get some time if I find anything. Very interesting topic. ←&nbsp;Metallurgist (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived



{| style="margin: 1em 4em;"
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| alt=Teahouse logo|link=w:en:WP:Teahouse|File:WP teahouse logo 2.png by User:Heatherawalls, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 ↗
| <div style="background-color: #fcfbed; color: #393D38; padding: 0.4em 1em; border-radius: 10px; font-size: 1.1em;">
Hello '''Metallurgist'''! The thread you created at the Teahouse ↗, {{tq|notvote count tool}}, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion ↗. If you have follow-up questions, please {{Edit |1=Wikipedia:Teahouse |2=create a new thread |section=new |preload=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Preload |preloadtitle=Follow-up to notvote count tool ↗}}.

<small>
See also the help page about the archival process. ↗
The archival was done by {{noping|lowercase sigmabot III}}, and this notification was delivered by {{noping|KiranBOT}}, both automated accounts ↗. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{tlx|bots|deny{{=}}KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2025 (UTC)</small>

<div><small></small></div>
</div>
|}
<!-- KiranBOTmsgID:1327180268 --><!-- User:KiranBOT/Teahouse_archival_notification -->

List Contributor Status Update



@Metallurgist Just as a heads up, I noticed that GreenMontanan has been indefinitely blocked. He is the user with the most edits to the list. I wanted to let you know as it affects page expansion and maintenance. EaglesFan37 (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

:@EaglesFan37 FFS not another one gone. ._. ←&nbsp;Metallurgist (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!



<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow:.1em .1em .5em rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75); box-shadow:.1em .1em .5em light-dark(rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75), rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.75));;" class="plainlinks">217px|left ↗190px|right ↗217px|left ↗301px|center ↗
'''Hello Metallurgist:''' Enjoy the '''holiday season ↗'''&#32;and '''winter solstice ↗''' if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Iljhgtn (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
center|500px ↗{{paragraph break}}
</div>
<div style="padding-left: 2em; margin-top: 1em; font-size: 88%; font-style: italic">Spread the WikiLove; use {{tls|Season's Greetings}} to send this message</div>{{-}} Iljhgtn (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

New pages patrol January–February 2026 Backlog drive



{| style="border: 1px solid #eaecf0; background: #f0feff; color: #202122; padding: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.5em; border-radius: 6px; box-shadow: 0 1px 4px rgba(0,0,0,0.08);"
| style="vertical-align: middle; font-size: 150%; font-weight: 600;" | January–February 2026 Backlog Drive ↗ <span style="font-size: 70%; color: #54595d;">| New pages patrol ↗</span>
| rowspan=3 | right|100px ↗
|-
|
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points.

|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:90%; color:#54595d; padding-top:15px;"|You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here ↗.
|}
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=1329717684 -->

Seasonal Greetings



{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | 211px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |
----
'''Hello Metallurgist, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion ↗. Spread the WikiLove ↗ by wishing another user a Merry Christmas ↗ and a Happy New Year ↗, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. <br />Happy editing,'''<br />
BhikhariInformer (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}''
|}
BhikhariInformer (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Metallurgist!


<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow:.1em .1em .5em rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75); box-shadow:.1em .1em .5em light-dark(rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75), rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.75));" class="plainlinks">
left|x173px ↗x173px|right ↗
{{Paragraph break}}
{{Center|{{resize|179%|'''''Happy New Year ↗!'''''}}}}
'''Metallurgist''',<br />Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year ↗, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
<br />BhikhariInformer (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2025 (UTC)<br /><br />
</div>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''{{resize|88%|Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.}}''
{{clear}}<!-- From template:Happy New Year fireworks --> BhikhariInformer (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Keith Davidson ↗



While I don't entirely disagree with you about the condition of the article, just remember when you write edit summaries like this ↗ that they may show up on the watchlists of the people who might originally have created the article and might take some comment like that as a ''de facto'' personal attack.

You might want to look at the last version of the article ↗ close to how I created it, before two editors (neither who have edited in a few years; one of whom stopped editing right after they finished their last edit to the article (reputation management ↗, anyone?) went after it. I wouldn't claim that version should be restored exactly, but it could at least show you how I meant the article to flow and how indiscriminately it got chopped at). Daniel Case (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

:Hi @Daniel Case. No one should take this as a personal attack, I will make sure to state that on the talk page. I think pages like this end up slapped together over the years by well-intentioned editors, but never really assembled together. I have reworked a number of articles and in examples like this, I will just go source by source and assemble what seems appropriate. Often, these are controversial articles and looks like there were some COI issues in the past. This looks like another example of a half-promo half-hitjob article that I have seen far too many times. I will take a look at your recommended version. I plan to give it a once over and if you or anyone else wants to add more, have at it. My view of it is to have it more as a assemblage of his career, than to list every client, which I think has a number of issues with that formatting. I feel like that makes better reading. Thanks for your advice and again you are more than welcome to hop back in. Happy new year! ←&nbsp;Metallurgist (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
::Yeah, as far as comments like that go, yours was mild. It's the ones that say something about the ''contributor'' who created the content like "What drunken idiot wrote this?" that I have been thinking of writing a project-space essay cautioning against. Maybe I'll call it "Don't summon spirits from the vasty deep ↗" (WP:SUMMONS?) Daniel Case (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
:::@Daniel Case Yea I make every effort to focus any issues at the article or the sources, not other editors. Altho one gets an accusation here and there when misinterpreted... But we all have personal views and interpretations so it never really matters. Meanwhile, some people just dont get it ↗... ←&nbsp;Metallurgist (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2026 WikiCup!



Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2026 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found '''here ↗'''. If you have not yet signed up, you can '''add your name here ↗''', and a bot will set up your submissions page within one day, ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page ↗.

For the 2026 WikiCup, the highest-ranking contestants will receive tournament points ↗ at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. This is the same scoring system that we had last year. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants are no longer eliminated at the end of each round.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: {{User4|Cwmhiraeth}}, {{User4|Epicgenius}}, {{User4|Frostly}}, {{User4|Guerillero}} and {{User4|Lee Vilenski}}. Good luck! <small>If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send ↗.</small> MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Epicgenius@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send&oldid=1330482987 -->

Your thread has been archived



{| style="margin: 1em 4em;"
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| alt=Teahouse logo|link=w:en:WP:Teahouse|File:WP teahouse logo 2.png by User:Heatherawalls, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 ↗
| <div style="background-color: #fcfbed; color: #393D38; padding: 0.4em 1em; border-radius: 10px; font-size: 1.1em;">
Hello '''Metallurgist'''! The thread you created at the Teahouse ↗, {{tq|Discussion bar thing}}, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion ↗. If you have follow-up questions, please {{Edit |1=Wikipedia:Teahouse |2=create a new thread |section=new |preload=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Preload |preloadtitle=Follow-up to Discussion bar thing ↗}}.

<small>
See also the help page about the archival process. ↗
The archival was done by {{noping|lowercase sigmabot III}}, and this notification was delivered by {{noping|KiranBOT}}, both automated accounts ↗. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{tlx|bots|deny{{=}}KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)</small>

<div><small></small></div>
</div>
|}
<!-- KiranBOTmsgID:1331337901 --><!-- User:KiranBOT/Teahouse_archival_notification -->

RM on Palestinian genocide accusation



Please correct your RM ↗ to say previous RM ↗ found no consensus. Its not correct for you to say consensus against. Its misrepresenting the previous RM.

Tagging closer @Mfield <span style="font-variant:small-caps; font-weight:800;"> Cinaroot </span> &nbsp;💬 06:58, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

:Please also add "Palestinian genocide" as an option. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; font-weight:800;"> Cinaroot </span> &nbsp;💬 06:59, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
::@Cinaroot
::1. Please keep discussions like this on the relevant talk page. There is no need to post on my wall.
::2. I cant bar anyone from choosing that as an option, but I can strongly advise against it, and for good reason. We actually all agree the current title is bad. There is opposition to changing it to PG, and the arguments for that position are quite strong because the scope of the article is 1948-2023. Changing it to PG would necessitate a merge/split resulting in the exactly where we are now. So why not just cut to the chase?
::3. I had another point that I cant remember now.
::4. I agree with you that I wish people hadnt been tagged in. I think the result would be the same, while some think you opposed it because it was unfavorable to your position. Tag ins like that always leave a bad taste. ←&nbsp;Metallurgist (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Another editor has asked you on the article page not to exclude Palestinian genocide as an option. I’m posted this on your talk page to get your attention ( 10 days ago ) and ask you to make the change. Some editors are casting their votes thinking Palestinian genocide isn’t an option because your RM message isn’t neutral and appears to be discouraging voters from choosing it. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; font-weight:800;"> 🐈 Cinaroot </span> &nbsp;💬 04:09, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
::::@Cinaroot An RM doesnt need to be neutral. It can be anything the proposer wants. Again, there isnt enough support for PG, and it would result in a merge/split situation, bringing us back to where we started. So the point is to get contributors focused on what CAN achieve consensus. Discouraging people from PG is the point. We know PG cant win, so lets focus on what can. Work with me here!
::::PS, you should put nbsp in your sig so the cat doesnt get separated from your name. ←&nbsp;Metallurgist (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Nadhim Zahawi ↗


25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :Nadhim Zahawi ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/Boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Metallurgist&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Nadhim Zahawi}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1332597301 report it to my operator].
Thanks, <!-- User:Qwerfjkl (bot)/inform -->Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Ambassador Yechiel Leiter, updates and additions



Hi, {{u|Metallurgist}}. Hope you are well. I noticed your active Wiki involvement on topics related to Israel and Judaism. I'd be grateful for your involvment on Ambassador Yechiel Leiter ↗'s article. In accordance with Wikipedia's rules for connected contributors, I have posted an edit request ↗ on the Talk page of the article with suggestions and requests to introduce additional details. Might you consider implementation? If you prefer, you can indicate your approval of these edits on the Talk page, and I can make the changes. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you for your time. Sabra in NY (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 Bangor Bombardier Challenger crash ↗



Hi @Metallurgist. Regarding your comment ↗ at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 Bangor Bombardier Challenger crash ↗, I was just wondering what type of proposition/guideline you were thinking about. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

:@CSGinger14 tagging you here and we can figure out a plan for this idea. And probably propose it somewhere. ←&nbsp;Metallurgist (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Recent edits


Hi @Metallurgist, I'm just reaching out to ask that you do a second pass over of your trimming of 2020 in the United States ↗. Though many of your removals were justified, from a brief glance of (admittedly only one of (am finishing up with a last few contributions before sleep beckons)) your edits it appears that you removed quite a few pieces of relevant information from that period, such as Peacock's ↗ launch, the emergence of Florida as an epicenter amid the pandemic, etc.. I suspect, though obviously cannot be sure, that there are at least a few other events that would arguably be considered to be culturally meaningful, especially given that the article is already specific to one location, and thus doesn't necessitate as serious concerns around over-specificity. I'll look forward to a response, and send my thanks in advance.
Regards, CSGinger14 (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

:@CSGinger14 I figured someone would have some disagreements with it. Its honestly all subjective how to handle this. I could have gone further, I could have gone less. I personally actually think we shouldnt even have these timeline articles except where it really makes sense like a complex event. For example, I have been using Timeline of the American Revolution ↗ to figure out where the important 250 events are. Obviously someone can argue the 2020 timeline is useful. My overall standard was:
:#If we have an article for the event, its worth a mention.
:#If its otherwise significant (always subjective), then its worth a mention.
:Peacock I actually was on the fence about. I wouldnt mind putting that back in. A lot of stuff was also poorly sourced. And I thought I left the Florida bit, unless it was something else. There is a lot of coronaWP:CRUFT ↗ out there that I dont think we need in the grand scheme of things. Which I guess leads to a third point: if something would need too much to balance it appropriately, I took it out. Mostly this was corona stuff like first case in XYZ state. That would make sense maybe on a corona centered timeline, but it would have 50+ items on this list. ←&nbsp;Metallurgist (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
::Actually could you tell me what makes Peacock launching notable vs other streaming services, so I can add that in? Im not sure just launching a streaming service is a big deal. ←&nbsp;Metallurgist (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

January–February 2026 NPP drive - Phase 2



thumb|right|270px|NPP unreviewed article statistics as of February 02, 2026 ↗
Welcome to Phase 2 of the January–February 2026 NPP drive ↗. During Phase 1, we reviewed 16,658 articles and 4,416 redirects, and there is currently a backlog of 16,475 articles and 23,782 redirects in the queue. Fantastic job! Completing 22,502 patrols in the first phase made a significant dent in the backlog. Let's keep our foot on the gas for Phase 2, and I hope we can achieve even more reviews than Phase 1. Best of luck!
<div class="center" style="width:auto; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;">{{Clickable button 2|Special:NewPagesFeed|Start patrolling!|class=mw-ui-progressive}}</div>
{{clear}}
<small>You are receiving this message because you added your name to the participants list ↗.</small>

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Backlog_drives/January%E2%80%93February_2026/Participants&oldid=1336142556 -->

Notice of Dispute Resolution



Greetings, a dispute in which you are involved has been added to the dispute resolution noticeboard here ↗. 81567518W (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Nick Spano



Just in the interest of transparency, here ↗ is what I found:




The rest is just "remember this show? here's what they look like now"-style clickbait or gossip about other stars of the show (mostly Shia LaBeouf ↗), and mostly from sources labeled yellow or red on WP:RSP ↗ such as TMZ, Buzzfeed, New York Post, or LADbible.

I personally think the Bustle source is fine as it doesn't seem to make any contentious claims and appears to have editorial oversight, but it's not really helpful in the absence of any other sigcov. <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>(What did I screw up now?)</sup> 16:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

:@TenPoundHammer I think this might have been useful on the AFD, but thats what I was looking for. Certainly not significant focused coverage and according to IMDB, he hasnt had much in the way of acting credits ever or in years. I am not going to add a position to the discussion, but there indeed is not much for notability. thanks ←&nbsp;Metallurgist (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
::I am topic-banned from XFD other than the creation of one new discussion per day, so any follow-ups have to be handled elsewhere. I just don't want to leave people hanging when they ask me questions in XFD space. <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>(What did I screw up now?)</sup> 18:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Oh, that makes sense and is unfortunate. Well, hopefully lessons have been learned and maybe you can come back to it next year. ←&nbsp;Metallurgist (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
::::@TenPoundHammer forgot to @ you. ←&nbsp;Metallurgist (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Upcoming expiry of your patroller right



Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot ↗ to let you know that your permission "patroller" (New page reviewers) will expire on 00:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC). For most rights, you will need to renew at WP:PERM ↗, unless you have been told otherwise when your right was approved. <small>{{grey|To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion ↗.}}</small> Leaderbot (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

WikiCup 2026 March newsletter



The first round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As some of you may have noticed, good article nomination reviews ↗ now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP ↗. This point increase has been retroactively applied to all good article reviews for which competitors have claimed points in this round. 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 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 1 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 300 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:


The full scores for round 1 can be seen here ↗. During this round, contestants have claimed 7 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 168 good articles, 13 good-topic articles and more than 50 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 14 In the News ↗ articles, and they have conducted nearly 700 reviews. The tournament points table ↗ will be updated within the next few days.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed ↗. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup ↗, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! <small>If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send ↗.</small> MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Epicgenius@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send&oldid=1340412148 -->

A Barnstar for You!



{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 100px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diligence'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For keeping your good sense while doing mundane tasks. Bearian (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
|}<!--Template:The Barnstar of Diligence-->

New page reviewer granted



right|80px ↗
Hi Metallurgist, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right ↗ to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation ↗ tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed ↗. If you asked for this at requests for permissions ↗, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol ↗. Before you get started, please take the time to:


You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources ↗. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! <sub>signed, </sub>'''''Rosguill''''' <sup>''talk''</sup> 23:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

:In regards to {{tq|Do you have a recommendation on where I should be for actual reviews? Given my depth of trying to verify sources, it often takes awhile. I dont like to just skim an article for a review.}}, I'm not entirely sure I understand the question as to what you mean by "where I should be". Do you mean in terms of time spent, sources checked, or something else? <sub>signed, </sub>'''''Rosguill''''' <sup>''talk''</sup> 00:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
::@Rosguill I mean for how many reviews is a good number to show for renewal. Like with AFDs it says at least 200 to apply. I am very indepth with verifications so it takes time to review one article. ←&nbsp;Metallurgist (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I would say around 10 article reviews is often enough, but really rather than a specific number, what I'm often looking for is a collection of examples that actually demonstrates that you understand the core guidelines and common pitfalls associated with article creation, and this is often best done by reviewing articles on distinctly different topics; 5 reviews of very different articles that each meet GNG is a clearer signal of understanding than checking off 100 articles that obviously meet WP:GEOLAND ↗ or WP:NPOL ↗. <sub>signed, </sub>'''''Rosguill''''' <sup>''talk''</sup> 19:06, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Closure



Hello, thanks for this ↗ closure. I totally missed it, even though I started the discussion. Before I go through the laborious task of implementing your closure result (i.e. merging two articles), I wanted to ask if you think you're WP:NACINV ↗. It seems you did take part in this discussionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Palestinian_genocide_allegations#Requested_move_5_January_2026 ↗. I'm trying to decide whether its best to just go ahead and implement your closure or to start an RfC formally on this topic (and deal with the drama that it would entail).'''VR''' <sub>(Please ping ↗ on reply)</sub> 16:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

:@Vice regent Oh dang I forgot about that too. I wonder if I should have implemented it now, but usually closers on AFDs do not implement merges. Now that I am looking again, I think I meant that more as a non-admin advisory. It wasnt a formal RFC or RM, but it looked like an easy determination to make. I have only closed things sparingly, so if I felt it was controversial, I would not have done anything. If you arent confident, then the proper thing to do is propose a WP:MERGE ↗ and tag both articles as required. The issue is merge proposals dont have any formal closure system like XFD and RM. Some users go to AFD with merges, but until the merge of merging is implemented, that is sometimes frowned upon. In this case, given the heat and scope of both articles, it might be worth a second whack it to ensure people actually agree. I will stay out and also not close it given that I "closed" the pre-rfc. But I dont oppose you doing so. I always like to say its better to have consensus in your pocket in these situations. Even when people disagree, they are often satisfied to have a discussion.
:Re NACINV: For that proposal you linked, I just proposed it to resolve the ongoing dispute. Everyone agreed the existing title was not good, so it was a question of what to change it to. I think involvement means direct involvement, as in you participated in that discussion. Some people in CTOP will totally avoid closures and even admin actions in that area due to the concerns. But it would potentially get impossible to close things if someone was disallowed from closing because of a slightly related comment at a different time. Again, in this case, I didnt think it was a controversial action for me to do, and I dont oppose trying it again. So I dont think there is any issue. ←&nbsp;Metallurgist (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
::Here are the options:
::*1. Go ahead and implement your consensus, if someone objects than do one of the things below.
::*2. Propose a WP:MERGE ↗. I strongly think that's not a good idea because it gives people only two options (support or oppose).
::*3. Propose an RfC with all of the available options, let it run, and request it be closed. I think this is much better than #2.
::Anyway, which of #1 or #3 do you think is better? I'm inclined to try #1 by starting off with putting <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>Being merged ↗<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> tag and then if no one objects, go ahead and start performing the merge.'''VR''' <sub>(Please ping ↗ on reply)</sub> 01:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Upcoming expiry of your patroller right



Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot ↗ to let you know that your permission "patroller" (New page reviewers) will expire on 00:00, 2 April 2026 (UTC). For most rights, you will need to renew at WP:PERM ↗, unless you have been told otherwise when your right was approved. <small>{{grey|To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion ↗.}}</small> Leaderbot (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Destubathon of the Americas ↗


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! ♦ <span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span> 17:17, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

What are construction troops?



Dear Metallurgist I noted your confusion at the merge discussion and I need to have a clear definition sentence for the article. Would this definition sentence make things clear to you? "'''Construction troops''' are military engineering ↗ personnel and units who construct and repair buildings and other facilities, notably dams, bridges or roads (such as the Russian Road Troops ↗). This sub-specialty of engineering is confusingly known as civil engineering ↗." So they're the Army Corps of Engineers who do the dams, not the Army engineers who build or blow things up on a battlefield.. If that is clear to you I can rewrite the article further. Buckshot06 (talk) ↗ 08:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

:@Buckshot06 Ill refer back to the merge to keep this in one place. ←&nbsp;Metallurgist (talk) 08:39, 29 April 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 ↗ | <span style="font-size: 85%">'''New pages patrol ↗''' </span>
| rowspan=3 | right|100px ↗
|-
|
|-
|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) 11:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=1350894664 -->

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:


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! <small>If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send ↗.</small> MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Epicgenius@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send&oldid=1351688849 -->

New Page Patrol Newsletter - May 2026



<div style="border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px">
<!-- do not use ;Header to make bold headers per H:DL ↗, causes errors for screen readers -->
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:'''

{{refend}}
</div>

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Novem Linguae@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Newsletter_list&oldid=1353812553 -->

Hello



Hi!

You haven't edited in a while. Hope you are well! aesurias <small>''(ping me in your reply, or I won't see it)'' (talk)</small> 13:31, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

:@Aesurias Thsnks for the note. Life has been lifeing. Ive been trying to get back in, but havent had time or energy. ←&nbsp;Metallurgist (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
::I imagine I have a bit to catch up on lol ←&nbsp;Metallurgist (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Invitation to WPID



I've started User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity, a group of editors working to recover fair decision-making, genuine neutrality, transparent governance, and public accountability on Wikipedia—all through established on-wiki processes (RfCs, Village Pump, noticeboards, talk pages). We now have twenty members and counting, including several deeply experienced editors. If these goals interest you, have a look at the project page and consider signing up. We could use your help. Larry Sanger (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

WikiCup 2026 July newsletter



The third round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 28 June at 23:59 (UTC). As a reminder, good article nomination reviews ↗ now receive 10 points, while 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 3 will advance to round 4 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 3 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points; eight scored over 500; and thirteen scored over 300. The top three contestants had at least one featured article ↗ (two of them with two apiece). The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:


The full scores for round 3 can be seen here ↗. During this round, contestants have claimed 12 featured articles, 12 featured lists, 7 featured-topic articles, 117 good articles, 74 good-topic articles and more than 30 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 13 In the News ↗ articles, and they have conducted nearly 180 reviews. The tournament points table ↗ has been updated.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed in Round 4. 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! <small>If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send ↗.</small> MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Epicgenius@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send&oldid=1361686567 -->