User talk:LEvalyn

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchroCat. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchroCat/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 15, 2026 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchroCat/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 10:35, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I want to enrich your data base by identifying one of the senior banker in the GCC. How is the way? --Mohamed Ali Shouman (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mohamed Ali Shouman, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm not really sure what you mean by this. I'm guessing you want to add a mention of a specific person to our encylopedia article about one of the organizations that goes by GCC. If so, the way to add information is to start by finding a reliable, published source which has stated that information. Then you can edit the article in question, with a citation to that source. Help:Introduction has some information on the mechanics of how to do that. You should also be aware of our policies around biographies of living persons and editing with a conflict of interest. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been working on more book-related articles again recently and wanted to ask about analysis/themes sections. I'm not looking for anything like a GA review, but I was wondering if you had any input on what level of analysis/interpretation from sources is generally acceptable to put in wikivoice?

My specific (recent) examples are The Bewitched Bourgeois § Analysis and Seven Floors § Analysis. I'm used to attributing opinions for stuff like reception sections, but even then I think it comes off a bit 'clunky' sometimes. On Seven Floors I have He is essentially lead to death by hypochondria., but attributing it to the sources I have that say that seems awkward while just writing Critics say that seems a bit weasle-wordy to me, even when cited at the end of the sentence.

If you'd like another example of my writing in this area for reference, I also have a similar section in Waiting for the Fear § Style and themes, which at least passed through DYK checks and didn't get any editing to that section during its front-page run other than some copy-editing.

Thanks, ScalarFactor (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to mull this over together! In general, I think using wikivoice for non-contested information makes for a clearer and more helpful reading experience. I'll definitely use wikivoice if 2+ sources state the same thing, and I'll consider using it if I know the one source on the topic hasn't been contested. (ie I primarily attribute when I am trying to present someone's interpretive argument (especially when mapping out a debate), or when someone has a really useful quote I want to include. (For an example of that latter case, I'd personally attribute in the prose or reword for "comedy of errors" on Seven Floors and for "disjointed interior states" on Waiting for the Fear.)

Maybe A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy is a useful example. Looking at that article more closely, I also see that I am citing a scholarly introduction for a lot of the claims that are in wikivoice; since the purpose of a scholarly introduction is, essentially, to summarize the most foundational consensus about the book (as opposed to eg a journal article which attempts to defend a new and original assertion or a book review which presents a subjective opinon), I feel very confident using wikivoice for material from introductions.

Looking at the articles you linked, I think the level of attribution is basically appropriate, but I wonder if there is a way to further improve the prose flow. I also notice that Buzzati could read German, and was one of the first to produce a novel that could be called "Kafkaesque" is kind of a WP:CLOP of the source's Buzzati, who read German, was among Kafka's first readers to produce a novel in the category of the "Kafkaesque.". In my experience, CLOP and 'flow' problems go hand in hand, because the source's sentences are built to fit in to the overall structure of the source, therefore don't 'fit in' in the new structure of the wiki article. For this example, the detail about German feels really out of place... looking more closely, I don't think that specific sentence from the source really tells us anything about Buzzati and Kafka that the article hasn't already said. I'd be inclined to try to incorporate this information instead: the later tales often ... [show] a permanent insecurity about his work's value and his invisible reader's expectations. (Within these pieces lies the evidence of how he fussed over the implication that he was Kafka's follower.) Something like, According to the NYT review, several stories express some of Buzzati's own "permanent insecurity" about writing in Kafka's shadow.

That wandered pretty far from the attribution question you asked, but I hope it's helpful to see some of my thinking/writing process for converting sources into encyclopedia articles... I always love to see more folks writing thorough book articles! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. I don't think it's really off-topic - the root cause is essentially just that my prose isn't very good, which I'm (unfortunately) aware of. I do enjoy the reading (which is why I'm on Wikipedia and making book articles in the first place), but the writing never really came naturally to me, so it's definitely warranted advice. I've been an editor on various wikis for a long time, though not really WP before this account other than the odd IP typo-fixing, but typically more in a filling-out-infoboxes-and-templates sort of way.

I'm a little surprised I've ended up working on as many book articles as I have. I had thought I'd mostly stay in the WP:VG areas, but so many important/successful books are missing/deficient that I just naturally found myself gravitating to the backlogs in this area (especially after I got newspapers.com access through TWL and realized how many books have dozens of reviews in every major newspaper pre-2000). ScalarFactor (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm constantly amazed by how many useful book articles don't exist! And newspapers.com is so delightfully rich for sourcing!! As for writing elegant prose... not everybody has to master every part of writing an encyclopedia, and it's much better to have something "clunky" than to have nothing at all. But if you like prose-crafting and would enjoy tinkering to improve it, it's definitely a learnable skill: I don't think writing comes "naturally" to anyone until they've clocked in a lot of very serious practice. I personally think I got a lot better at "flow" through a class where I learned this concept (follow the link to download the PDF) and George Gopen's framework of "writing from the reader's perspective"; it may not be worth getting his whole book, but these slides seem to hit the main points. My other advice, as someone who has taught writing from time to time, is that skill-building in writing really relies on audience feedback. On Wikipedia, I found GA reviewing to be good practice, both noticing what throws me off in other people's articles and hearing from reviewers what didn't make sense to them in my own articles. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that it comes down to practice, yeah. It's part of why I started making some articles for books I hadn't read (as I was pretty bottlenecked by my reading speed of notable titles that don't have an article yet), though most of my more substantial articles/DYKs are still for works that I have read. The ongoing destubathon fits in for that too.

I've considered the GA process in the past, but I'm a bit wary of the whole process, as a reviewer and a nominator. I think I have a decent sense for when the writing isn't quite right (see: my initial question here), but I'd be a bit reluctant be a reviewer in a process that just ends up saying "this writing isn't up to par" but can't give any actionable suggestions on how to fix it. I know I personally would be a bit annoyed if I got a GA reviewer like that. As a nominator, I just think that a failed nomination (especially a quickfail) would be demotivating to my wiki presence as a whole (especially because "this article is a failed GA candidate" sticks around on the talk page forever until someone gets it promoted).

I'll definitely take a look at the writing advice though - thanks for that and sorry for the late reply here, got sidetracked. ScalarFactor (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• April 29 – May 5: Call for candidates
• May 8–12: Discussion phase
• May 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familiar with the community's expectations of administrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for admin elections candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
• The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. Later, a user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | May 2026, Vol 12, Issue 5, Nos 358, 359, 370, 371, 372 Online events: New: Countries starting with G and H | Women's scientific works | Religion and Spirituality Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: Contest: Destubathon of the Americas Tip of the month: Struggling to find scientific works to write about? Start with review articles or textbooks, which may highlight influential studies, theories or methods by women. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

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

Conversation with Gemini Story about mjint1 I want upload on Wikipedia

MJINT1 MJINT1 (born Jonathan Mwape, c. 2006), also known by the moniker MJ INNIT, is a Zambian digital entrepreneur, content creator, and music personality based in Lusaka. He is best known for his work in social media brand management and his involvement in the UK Drill and streetwear subcultures within Southern Africa.

Early life and education Mwape was raised in Lusaka, Zambia. He attended Mpamba Primary School and later completed his secondary education at New Kamulanga Secondary School, graduating in 2024. During his youth, he developed an interest in digital media and fashion, which would later form the basis of his professional brand.

Career Digital Branding and "MJ INNIT" Mwape established the personal brand MJINT1, focusing on social media marketing and cross-platform content creation. His work primarily spans TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook, where he focuses on streetwear aesthetics and music-related content.

In early 2026, he expanded his brand into the fitness industry with the development of the MJ INNIT Fitness application, aimed at providing digital workout solutions. He also manages an online merchandise storefront, integrating affiliate marketing and streetwear distribution.

Music and Style Associated with the UK Drill and Grime movement, MJINT1 is known for incorporating the "Roadman" aesthetic into his digital persona. This includes the frequent use of Nike Tech Fleece, skull caps, and Syna 95 Max footwear. In 2026, he produced a notable remix of the Central Cee track "Tension," adapting the ly --Joebrown2468 (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joebrown2468, it looks like you want to make a Wikipedia article about yourself. It doesn't look like you yet meet our criteria to have an article. Our articles have to be based on completely independent publications, which usually means a wikipedia article happens after several major career successes, not at the start of someone career. Do also read our policies about handling a conflict of interest. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please how do edited here --Nsieffy (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nsieffy, and we some to Wikipedia! Every article will have an “edit” button in the top left that will let you make changes. Help:Introduction has a lot more information about how to edit. Let me know if you have more specific questions as you get started, and happy editing! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion phase of the May 2026 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• May 8–12: Discussion phase (we are here)
• May 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase
• Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages are open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Discussion phase.

On 13 May, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for.

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

-- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The voting phase of the May 2026 administrator elections has started and will continue until 19 May 2026 at 23:59 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• May 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase (we are here)
• Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LEvalyn,

Backlog update

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

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

2024 and 2025 NPP Awards

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

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

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

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

January–February backlog drive

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

May backlog drive

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

PageTriage

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

Reminders:

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

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

Here is another BLP that has languished for literally decades without inline references. What should I do? Bearian (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m happy to break down how I usually evaluate articles, though I don’t focus on BLPs. Personally, I start by evaluating the content to see if there’s anything contentious, promotional, or copyrighted that needs removing. In this case I don’t see anything worrying at a glance (though I’m on mobile so I haven’t checked Earwig for copyvio), so since general references are permitted I might choose to do nothing. If I wanted to make improvements, I’d start by reading the references and adding inline citations to whichever ones support each piece of information in the article. Usually that involves some anti-linkrot rescue work. After doing so I’d probably have an idea of whether the notability tag was warranted or could be safely removed; if I wasn’t sure, I’d do a WP:BEFORE and either nominate for AfD or add more sources to a “further reading” section. Usually I end up doing some re-organization or new writing along the way too while I have it all in front of me. I suppose if I was only interested in notability I could skip straight to the BEFORE, but I personally have more fun doing cleanup to remove tags. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Como agregar una imagen --Katak12 (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

¡Hola, Katak12, y bienvenido a Wikipedia! Puedes encontrar información sobre cómo añadir imágenes aquí: Help:Introduction to images with VisualEditor/1. Quizás prefieras contribuir en la Wikipedia en español en su lugar; aquí, en la Wikipedia en inglés, se espera que los usuarios se comuniquen en inglés. ¡Feliz edición! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

May 27: WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, with an online-based participation option also available. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome! Featuring this salon, a presentation on on whether Wikipedia can replace law school. And also, a facilitated group discussion on the proper place of AI in the wiki-verse. All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct and Photography Policy. Meeting info: Wednesday, May 27 WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce (optional RSVP on-wiki). 6:00 pm – 7:00 pm (Open Hour) 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm (Wiki Salon) (Prime Produce, Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan) Also online via Zoom

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, LEvalyn

I would like to know what happened to my contribution. I can no longer see the changes I made on Wikipedia. Were my edits removed or reverted, or is there another issue? Could you please explain what happened and whether there is anything I need to do?

Thank you for your assistance. --Princeaxes (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Princeaxes, and welcome to Wikipedia! If you click "View history" on an article you've been working on, you'll be able to see other people's changes to it and read their edit summaries to understand why they made those changes. Checking the edit histories of Perth, Solar power in Australia, and Solar panel, it looks like your additions were removed because of the source they cited. www.solar365.net.au is not a good "reliable source" for adding this kind of information, and it looks like the editor who undid your changes was concerned the citations were WP:REFSPAM. If you want to add more information to articles about solar power in Australia, the best place to start would be finding a high-quality scholarly source or an in-depth newspaper/magazine article which supports the information being added. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | June 2026, Vol 12, Issue 6, Nos 358, 359, 373, 374, 375 Online events: New: LGBTQ+ women | Alphabet run: Countries starting with I, J, K and L Article improvement campaign: Orphaned women Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements, tips, participation... Announcements from other communities: Eiffel women Tip of the month: Consider contributing to two of our monthly events at once, and improve coverage of LGBTQ+ women by de-orphaning their articles. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram & Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hello bud, can you help me installing some of the most helpful tools out there on Wikipedia? --Yavuz Ben (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yavuz Ben, and welcome to Wikipedia! One thing that I recommend turning on in Special:Preferences is Editing > "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". Otherwise, it's actually hard to give suggestions, since it depends a lot on what kind of editing you're doing! For example, I like to review Wikipedia:Good articles, and for that I use Cite Unseen and Veracity, but they wouldn't be very helpful for writing articles. I also use User:Kingsacrificer/BookCover to add fair-use book cover images to article about books. You might get some inspiration from Wikipedia:User scripts/Most imported scripts for things you'd find useful for what you like to do! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I'll shortly check out. Yavuz Ben (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, I'm new to editing here on Wikipedia, quite frankly i have never thought of it up untill now. Say, how does one get into it? At first make links between sites or make citations? I'm looking forward to hearing more, thank you! --Ottauri (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ottauri, and welcome!! Your Special:Homepage will have some automatically-generated suggested edits (including things like making links) which can help with figuring out the mechanics. There are also some good mechanical explanations at Help:Introduction.

I think Wikipedia gets the most fun when you start adding information to articles and seeing that you've made a huge improvement, so I suggest adding sources & more information to topics that don't have much. One way to do this is to read interesting new articles/books and then check relevant wikipedia pages to update them, though unless you're interested in niche topics you might find little needs adding. Going the other direction, you can look for "stub" articles on topics that interest you and then look for the sources to expand them. For example, Category:Science fiction stubs identifies SF-related articles, but you can look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/List of stubs to find topics that interest you. There's a destubathon contest going for a few more days, the Wikipedia:Destubathon of the Americas, which could help you learn the ropes.

There's usually a challenge or two every month -- next month, I am co-organizing a Good Article peer-reviewing drive which you would also be extremely welcome to join!! -- so if you keep an eye on the banners at the top of Special:Watchlist that will also introduce you to areas where you can edit with scaffolding and some camaraderie.

If you have questions as you go, feel free to ask me any time, or for a quicker troubleshooting response there is also a help desk. Happy editing! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for all of these suggestions, i went ahead and did a few of the tasks the as i may call it tutorial suggested for me, and I really got the hang of it! I have to say I'm enjoying myself quite a pleasant bunch here. I am also really looking up to the challange wich you will be co-organizing. If I find anything else that needs explaining, I'll reach out either to you or the Help Desk.

Thanks again,

Ottaurii Ottauri (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your time reading this. When referring to a media article, are any sources fine? From my understanding, Wikipedia is unbiased, so a reference may be balanced towards a certain perspective. --Sansdominium (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sansdominium, and welcome to Wikipedia! You may find it helpful to read our general guidelines on reliable soures, and this list of specific sources that have often been discussed. Let me know if you have more questions, or for a faster response you can also ask at our help desk. Happy editing! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm trying edit the page for a melody used in music called the Arabian riff by adding examples from the 2000s section but I keep getting rejected/undone for not having a verifiable source. I tried using a site that played the music clips next to each other as an example but was told it was a self-published source, and consequently is not reliable. I am unsure how to add sources for a melody and would appreciate the help. Thank you --Manateemilk (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Manateemilk, and welcome to Wikipedia! It sounds like your additions might be running against Wikipedia’s policy of no “original research”— instead of citing the melody itself (which requires someone to listen to it to interpret and judge whether it is really an example of this riff), Wikipedia needs to cite something like a review of the album, a scholarly history of music, or other published secondary source that actually contains the words “this song contains an example of this riff”. The source doesn’t have to be in English, but it does have to be independent of the musicians and written by a professional. Because everything we publish is supposed to be verifiable in a published source, sometimes that means there’s true information that Wikipedia can’t include. If you think you’ve found a usable source, I’m happy to let you know if I think it will work. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition of LEvalyn for accumulating at least 25 points in the May 2026 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped review 14884 articles during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and helping reduce the backlog! – DreamRimmer ■ 15:57, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

		Worm Gear
		This award is given in recognition of LEvalyn for accumulating at least 7 points during each week of the May 2026 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped review 14884 articles during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and helping reduce the backlog! – DreamRimmer ■ 15:57, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	I just stumbled upon your essay at User:LEvalyn/Getting information from book reviews and had a read through. Excellent! Lots of great tips and advice!! Thanks so much for taking the time to put this together. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 24: WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, with an online-based participation option also available. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome! This month's salon is a special Pride Month edition. Help us contribute to the Wiki Loves Pride global campaign and discuss how we can better represent LGBTQ+ issues on Wikimedia platforms. All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct and Photography Policy. Meeting info: Wednesday, June 24 WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce (optional RSVP on-wiki). 6:00 pm – 7:00 pm (Open Hour) 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm (Wiki Salon) (Prime Produce, Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan) Also online via Zoom

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Silkoreo's mentor Fieryninja is away.

Hello, I wrote an article on sheild ai x-bat can you please guide as its my first article and has been rejected twice. --Silkoreo (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the article declines contained information about why it wasn't accepted -- it looks like the first draft showed signs of LLM use, and the second draft (in February) didn't cite enough independent, secondary news coverage. It looks like you've been able to add some more secondary coverage as the drone has gotten further in development, but since it looks like it still doesn't exist as an available product (?) it is likely still not ready for its own article.

My advice is actually to write ~2 paragraphs to add as a section to the existing Shield AI article, which is currently not very long and has space for this information. Eventually, if much more information is published, it might make sense to split it out into its own article, but there's no rush.

If you have any personal or professional connection to Shield AI at all (even if you aren't paid by them), you need to follow our policies on managing a conflict of interest, including declaring your connection to the topic and using an edit request to add the new paragraph. Let me know if you have any questions, and happy editing! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ok thank you i will add that in sheild ai article,now i understood why we have mentors Silkoreo (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LEvalyn, I recently stumbled across The Potter's Field (Peters novel) when cleaning up maintenance tags and noticed it had an entire Kirkus review in a blockquote. After deleting it and tagging for cv-revdel, I looked back even further and noticed it had a by-now-mostly-edited-out summary copypasted from PW. To make a long story short, I think every single article in the "novels" header on {{Brother Cadfael}} either has or has-in-edit-history reception sections that are wholesale copies of professional review outlet. For a few examples: ex1, ex2, ex3 are still live, while this got pared down to a more justifiable quote in the current revision, but here is a large amount of smaller quotes in article history, and this might not be enough to be copyvio. I'm not really familiar with the procedures for WP:CCI but this seems like a bit much for {{cv-revdel}}. I also haven't looked into any other articles the editor who introduced this text has contributed to - these are all expansions of other's articles, not creations, so it's difficult to see where they added significant text. ScalarFactor (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]