Hi! Thank you very much for your comment on the Draft: Moullinex. I already followed your suggestions. I reduced the singles list and left the ones with most notable collaborators or press coverage, and added a couple more reviews. I was wondering if I should reduce the singles and EP's lists even more or just delete it entirely before re-submiting for revision or if there is anything else I should improve!
Thank you in advance :))
Apologies for a quite slow reply here, Moullinex! I'm glad to hear you've been making progress with the article. I'm not an expert in music, but in general our articles aim to cover the information that secondary sources have chosen to cover: if there are singles with press coverage, that's more reasonable to include (though you may want to check that it's independent coverage rather than based on press releases). In the Articles for Creation process, it's OK if the article isn't perfect, as long as it's done the baseline of showing how the subject meets our criteria to have an article (ie all the secondary sources for WP:NMUSICIAN) and doesn't have, like, horrible copyright violations or unsourced personal information about a living person. So, you should feel free to re-submit it for review once you think it's made it over those thresholds. Happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I'm Kabil Djenasevic born in Yugoslavia, and was taken by my parents as a small child to Italy first, and then to the lower East side of Manhattan. Thank you, as I will be writing a article, starting very soon. This article is from first hand knowledge and experience of which I will provide third party evidence, and fully explain, in detail as best as possible, and thank you for your help and skills, so everything comes across in a true light, of which is supported by evidence and material facts. I think you will enjoy doing this article. I truly appreciate your help and support. Thank you again --Kabil Djenasevic (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"After a long period of mentorship, the 2 months-old GOAT of Yugoslavia stepped up and created a wiki article based off his first-hand experience and knowledge. But before that, he said his last goodbye and introduction to his long-serving mentor~~"
Hi lEvalyn, and thank you for all your support so far on the Emily Brontë article. I've had another try at the Personality section - my intention had been to reduce its length, but I may have ended up making it even longer! I wonder if you might look at it at some point, please, and give me your opinion on whether I'm taking it in the right direction? It's such a challenging topic as far as neutrality is concerned, and I'm loth to remove details, although, like you, I wonder how much of the anecdotal stuff an encylcopaedia should contain. (I'm also gradually working through the citations, and replacing some of the sub-optimal ones.) ArthurTheGardener (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the new structure is definitely on the right track! I especially like the framing that starts with the context of how little we really know here. I do wonder, chronologically should the Charlotte section come before Gaskell? Otherwise I don’t see anything obvious. Oh, the last section could plausibly be called “modern re-diagnoses” but I think the existing title works too. I’ve been glad to see this article getting more and more polished and the sourcing reinforced. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @LEvalyn! I've finally managed to get Emily Bronte upgraded to a GA, and now I'm starting to look at Charlotte Bronte. One thing strikes me as odd - a previous editor has changed her name to Charlotte Nicholls (her married name) in the lead, and I'm wondering whether this is necessary: she wasn't married for long, and the world knows her primarily as Charlotte Bronte. If you have time, I'd appreciate any thoughts you might have on this, and on the article as a whole.ArthurTheGardener (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on the GA!! It’s wonderful to see these important articles so improved. I don’t have time this week to look more closely at Charlotte’s article but I’ll take a look when I can. As for the name issue, looking at MOS:NEE and a comparison Vita Sackville-West I think the convention is to start the lead with the “final” form of their name but still title the article and describe them in the text with their “common” name, which I agree is definitely Brontë in this case. So I think the existing version of Charlotte’s lead works, though I agree it feels odd to encounter her married name first thing. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know a way to cite a series of references in one citation? There are six sources for a sentence and they came from the same website, but with a different page (note:this six pages are tables of information for the six objects of the article). But referencing them each in their own citation will make a line of citation that is more than three, for a kinda trivial info.
I don't know a lot about it, but I found this page with some more info. It looks like you can maybe run it on individual articles using this and there's also a way to give it a list of pages to run on. If you've just found an individual dead link, you can fix it manually by looking for an archive at the Wayback Machine and adding that archive URL to the existing reference (I think the relevant parameter for it is archive-link= ). ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) The IAbot is dissuaded from redoing the same searches over and over again by the "permanent dead link" template (and I think in some circumstances the plain "dead link" template), so if you see this, before running IAbot, you'll want to remove that template (just click on it in Visual Editor and hit delete). The template is supposed to mean that there are no archives available, but I've had plenty of luck getting IAbot to find even these "permanently" dead ones for me once it's removed. -- asilvering (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello L, my question revolves around conflict of interest. I created a Wikipedia profile with the intention of creating an article on a family member who is a performing artist / musician. However once I started reading the introductory information for new editors, I realized this would be contrary to the conflict of interest rules. I'm wondering what my options are: Just drop it and let natural selection take its course? Request an article? I'm pretty sure they have exceeded the notability criteria for an article, but maybe I just need to let it go and let nature take its course? Thank you for considering my query. -W --ArgentumDoctor (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ArgentumDoctor and welcome to Wikipedia! I’m glad you’re being so conscientious. We do allow people with COIs to create articles if they use the “Articles for Creation” process, through which an unconnected editor will review the article before it is published to confirm it meets our criteria for an article to exists & is written in an encyclopedic style. So you can proceed if you use the WP:Article Wizard and make sure you declare you have a connection to the subject.
Depending on where this family member is in their career, though, they may not meet our criteria to have an article. The main criteria is the existence of multiple pieces of published, independent, significant coverage (like newspaper profiles or reviews of their albums). I suggest making sure you have enough sources before you start trying to write anything. You may find the advice at WP:BACKWARDS helpful. If you do find some sources I’m happy to look them over and let you know if I think they will work. Feel free to ask any other questions you may have as well. Happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Major mainstream outlet: Rolling Stone is one of the most authoritative and globally recognized music publications.
• Substantial early coverage: Introduces Bella White to a national audience, highlighting her background, musical influences, and early songwriting voice.
• Independent and editorially significant: Establishes her as an emerging artist in a reputable publication before her Rounder Records signing — key evidence of early notability.
⸻
2. PopMatters — “Canada’s Bella White Is Making All the Right Moves These Days” (Michael Bialas, April 11, 2023)
• Full-length artist feature: Goes beyond album review to discuss her career trajectory, songwriting philosophy, label relationship, and growing recognition in Americana and folk circles.
• Independent critical source: PopMatters is a respected cultural journal with editorial independence and long-standing coverage of serious artists.
• Demonstrates sustained notability: Written three years after the Rolling Stone feature, showing enduring and increasing recognition across album cycles.
⸻
3. The Bluegrass Situation — “Bella White May Be the Next Queen of Country and Bluegrass Heartache” (April 2023)
Ok, this is very promising! Technically, interviews don't count as fully independent, so the BGS source can be used to write the article but it doesn't count for showing that she meets the criteria to have an article. I see some non-interview-based research in the PopMatters one, though, so that counts for the criteria, and I'd count the Rolling Stone one too. More importantly, it looks like she's released two albums that each got multiple reviews, and the reviews also count. I think you're good to go to start an article with the WP:Article Wizard!
As an additional piece of advice, I'm not sure if the summary of those sources is in your own words or if you used an AI like ChatGPT -- some bits of the phrasing/structure feel a little like how AIs answers these questions -- so I want to give you a heads-up that Wikipedia really, really opposes using AI-generated text in articles. Especially for musicians, AIs are very bad at following Wikipedia's style guidelines around a neutral, non-promotional tone, and it's hard to make an AI stick carefully to the sources to keep everything verifiable. You'll have more success getting a reviewer to approve your article if it's entirely in your own words, even with spelling/grammar errors, rather than using an AI output. Especially since shorter articles also tend to get reviewed and approved faster! (Less work for the reviewers!)
Great! Thank you! You have a good ear for AI! I used it to help me identify strong sources and why they were such. I actually enjoy writing and think I'm half decent at it, so I'll do that myself. I really appreciate your guidance and advice. I'll keep you posted! Cheers, -W ArgentumDoctor (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, folks who review COI articles all develop a good ear for AI, since it's popular with spammers... using your own writing will also help you stand out from that crowd. But using it to find sources like that is OK, as long as you verify for yourself what you find, so you should be all good. Have fun! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On 5 October 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bootles' Baby, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bootles' Baby's author's baby was Bootles? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bootles' Baby. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Bootles' Baby), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.
Bella White, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
This award is given in recognition to LEvalyn for accumulating at least 5 points the September 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 19,000+ articles reviewed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Utopes(talk / cont)03:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know how to archive a fine source in case that they might die in the future? I am trying to archive it without putting the Archive link in front of the original.
I think if you include both the regular link and the archive link within the reference, and include the parameter url-status=live, it will have the archive link available but will still default to the main one. Does that work? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have been very busy in the last couple of weeks so I have not had a chance to follow up. Several articles I worked hard to rewrite and update with significant improvements were reversed by another person claiming I used an LLM to write them. It seems a little difficult for me to disprove this claim? I have no idea how they made it without citing a single error in my edits. You will not find a factual error because I worked hard to make sure there isn't one with numerous high quality citations. Maybe you could claim the language is not neutral enough for Wikipedia, and that is probably a consequence of caring about the articles that I updated. If I need to rewrite my contributions to be more neural then I will do so but I would appreciate your thoughts on what to do next.... Cheers, --Ratnapoorva (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ratnapoorva, and welcome to Wikipedia. Sorry to hear you're having a frustrating experience. It looks like you've been making very big edits with some intersecting issues -- some unencyclopedic phrasings, some uncited information and information cited only to non-independent source, some over-specific local details... LLMs often sound like very excited tourist brochures, so I see why these additions raised that concern. My advice is to carefully read the policy about reliable sources, and then focus on making much smaller edits at a time -- working in just one section or just one paragraph. If you do less in each edit, it's easier for others to change/undo just some of your work instead of all of it at once, and that will help you get a better for which specific parts weren't working. Let me know if you have other questions, and happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:04, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello ASKWendy, and welcome to Wikipedia. The first step is to make sure the person meets our criteria to have an article, by doing research to find multiple published sources of information about them. WP:BACKWARDS has some helpful advice. If this is a person you know, you should also read our policies around editing with a conflict of interest (Wikipedia considers it a conflict of interest if you know each other at all). On the technical side of things, you can make a draft using the article wizard. Let me know if you have any questions, and happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank you for volunteering to mentor! I've been copy editing some pages, but I've been hesitant to remove the tag indicating that they need copy editing because I'm new and a little uncertain. Do you have any recommendation about when it is or isn't okay for me to remove those tags from an article I've looked over completely? --GreySquirrel271 (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for diving in on cleanup! Anyone can remove a tag once they’ve made a good faith effort to address the problem it was tagged for. Often, several people in a row are too cautious to remove the tag and so a perfectly fine article sits there tagged waiting for the hero who will un-tag it: that can be you!
Copy-editing can be a tricky one though because sometimes people tag for a copy edit but actually the page needs a deeper rewrite (for example, if it’s not neutral or has a lot of trivia). In those cases it’s ideal to remove the copy edit tag and add a more specific one about the deeper problem. But, if you don’t see that kind of issue, no need to worry about it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - your incredibly succinct comments on my article were more penetrating and dug a lot deeper than any other editors' comments so I thought I'd run my thoughts past you before responding formally. It is so complicated writing about a spy! Anyway, to save you looking it up you wrote:
Comment Haven't looked at the sources on him, but his one book does not pass WP:NBOOK so there's no WP:ATD in converting to a book article instead (and naturally no path to WP:NAUTHOR). It does not inspire confidence in his overall notability that his own site says the book "has been self-published without any major fanfares or publicity".
I (and my colleagues who know more about Wikipedia's processes than I) had the following thoughts:
I don’t think it would be right to conclude that Beyond Enkription fails WP:NBOOK or that there’s “no path” to WP:NAUTHOR or any valid WP:ATD. The book has been commented on independently, including in two factual documentaries by Spain’s national broadcaster RTVE (El Archivo Burlington and El hombre de Pemberton – MI6), both of which included examinations of the autobiography’s authenticity. The book is mostly autobiographical, giving it a factual dimension that goes beyond ordinary fiction and that has attracted journalistic attention. While the author notes in his website that (in 2014) it was “self-published without any major fanfares or publicity” that modest launch makes the subsequent international coverage and sustained public interest all the more notable. In 2015, to satisfy demand from customers, a hardback edition was released by Dolman Scott, a recognised UK publisher of independent titles. Since then the book has drawn steady reader interest with over one hundred reviews averaging over four stars on Amazon and Goodreads alone. Taken together, these points show that both the book and its author meet the spirit of WP:NBOOK and WP:NAUTHOR, and at the very least merit consideration under WP:ATD rather than outright deletion.
In addition it should be noted that:
· The AfD concerns the biographical article (Bill Fairclough), not a stand-alone book article. Whether the book meets WP:NBOOK is tangential: the biography must be judged under WP:GNG and WP:NBLP. The author’s achievements, broadcast coverage and corporate record are independent of the publishing route.
· The RTVE documentaries are editorially independent factual investigations that analyse both the book’s content and the veracity of its autobiographical claims. This constitutes significant coverage under WP:NBOOK and reliable secondary analysis under WP:GNG.
· Regarding verified sustained public interest, numerous reader reviews and a later hardback edition by a third-party publisher evidence continuing relevance and address any possible “self-published” concerns.
· Even if any editor doubts strict compliance with NBOOK or NAUTHOR, WP:ATD requires editors to explore constructive outcomes instead of deletion. The assertion that there is no ATD contradicts this policy directive.
· The use of the phrase “does not inspire confidence” is a subjective opinion and conjecture. AfD outcomes must rest on verifiable evidence and Wikipedia’s written guidelines, not on personal impressions.
· When combined with the RTVE broadcasts, verified career data and documented literary reception, both Mr Fairclough and his principal work satisfy the spirit and purpose of WP:NBOOK and WP:NAUTHOR and therefore comfortably justify retention under WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE.
The sheer volume of our thoughts is testament to just how succinct your comments were! Maybe you might consider these and see if you wish to amend your original succinct comment. Best wishes SapientiaLudens SapientiaLudens (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This response is quite excessive in length and does not demonstrate a very accurate understanding of Wikipedia's policies, but I'll engage with the substantive information you provide. WP:UGC reviews like Amazon and Goodreads are irrelevant to NBOOK. The existence of a hardback edition is irrelevant to NBOOK. The two Spanish TV broadcasts are in fact interviews, and thus non-independent and irrelevant to NBOOK. Evaluating WP:NAUTHOR was my generosity to you: a subject does not always need to pass GNG if a WP:SNG is passed instead, so I checked for a plausible SNG option; however, NAUTHOR requires multiple NBOOK passes, so the best case scenario in terms of SNGs would be converting the article into one about the book as an alternative to deletion. If the book had at least two independent, published reviews, I would support a book article as an alternative to deletion. Alas, this is not so. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your speedy response which in your own subjective words "does not inspire confidence". Many of Wikipedia's standards and processes seem to have been born to be wildly manipulated. As Voltaire cautioned, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" even if only in writing. Best wishes Sap SapientiaLudens (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Today, I just stumbled upon a wiki article about a town called "Prusa" while working on articles about Bursa, which is the successor town of the former. I think the article needs to be merged to the "Bursa" article, because most of the article is already written either in the article about Bursa or the one about Cius, which is the predecessor of both towns.
I am not saying that there is no distinct information in the article at all. It's just that I don't think the city's timeline is extraordinary/different enough to be created independently from the history section of the Bursa article, unlike Cius.
Overall, the reason I am writing this here is because the article's creator, carlossuarez46, has long retired and that I actually have yapped another essay to him about different issue, which is now currently in the archive, unreplied. And also, I think you may know what article that can or can't be merged.
I see why you think a merge is a good idea! There is (naturally) a whole process for merging, which you can read about at Wikipedia:Merging. It doesn't sound like this move would be controversial, but a merge proposal will demonstrate that consensus. Let me know if you have any trouble with it! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good day, I made a whole new article and it's ready in my sandbox. For some reason I don't find the "move" button to get it into a draft and submit it for review. I only see "publish" on top of the sandbox but then it is not going live on Wikipedia. Can you help me out? Greetings --Otival (talk) 07:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! If you're talking about Draft:Lavito, it looks like a bot did come by and add the "Articles for Creation" interface to let you submit it for review. The simplest way to set up the submission details for future drafts is to use the WP:Article Wizard rather than your sandbox (it will do it for you). It also looks like a reviewer has already come by and declined the draft. It looks like Lavito is a successful musician but I don't see that he yet meets any of our criteria to have an article. It's possible he might meet our criteria for actors if you can find 2+ reviews each for 2+ performances he was in (eg the Oliver Twist production and the film he starred in). In general, you might find the advice in this essay helpful -- before you spend any more time writing this draft, I encourage you to spend your time on researching sources and confirming that there are enough significant, independent, reliable publications. They don't have to be in English! I'm happy to offer advice about specific possible sources if you have questions. Good luck, and happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nathanmc2000, and welcome to Wikipedia! User:Nathanmc2000 is your user page, which you shouldn't use to write articles; it's a place for editors to introduce themselves to each other, as you can see at my user page, User:LEvalyn. If you want to write an article, the simplest way is probably to use the WP:Article Wizard, which will handle giving it the right name and also letting you submit the article through our review process.
Something I notice about what you have so far is that it doesn't cite any sources. For a topic to meet our criteria to have an article, there need to be secondary sources about the topic that the article is based on. It's OK for plot summaries and cast lists to be uncited (the idea is that all the info is in the show itself) but some part of the article should still have sources. In this case, I suggest adding some information on the production, release, or reception of the special. Let me know if you have more questions as you work, and happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning sir, i am entirely new to wikipedia and i want to start by contributing an article on military and National Cadet Corps of India and its achievements. Can you guide me? --Nishant 43 (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia! It looks like there is already an article, National Cadet Corps (India), which you could contribute to. I notice a lot of the material there does not cite any sources, so you could improve it by finding reliable sources on the topic, making sure the article matches what the sources say, and adding citations to those sources. However, India's military history is recognized here as a "contentious topic". so it may not be the best place to make your very first edits -- on contentious topic, there's a lot less wiggle room for mistakes. I suggest looking for another topic that interests you (popular media is a common one) and contributing to articles related to that topic while you learn the rope. If you have any questions as you work, I'm happy to answer, or for a faster response you can ask at the Teahouse, our question forum for newcomers. Happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just changed my draft and submitted it again. Will it be reviewed again, or do I need to create a separate submission? If so, how would I do that? --4theculture (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On 30 October 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lady Jennifer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the novel Lady Jennifer sometimes came with a book of advice promoting John Strange Winter Toilet Preparations? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lady Jennifer (novel). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lady Jennifer), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.
Verifiability is increasingly important as AI evolves. You should ensure that every statement made is adequately sourced. There should be no less than three independent reliable sources for each biography, including at least one source for each paragraph.
Progress ("moving the needle"):
Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 20,473 articles created in the past year.
21 Oct 2024, 19.963% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,030,245 biographies; 405,305 women)
28 Oct 2025: 20.23% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,094,677 biographies; 423,778 women)
Help wanted! Want to apply your skills or learn new ones? Help us plan monthly events, design event logos, come up with a tip-of-the-month, and/or provide any general ideas on developing the project.
This award is given to LEvalyn for accumulating at least 30 points in the October 2025 GAN Backlog Drive. Your dedicated reviews contributed to the successful reduction of the backlog and helped improve the quality of articles. Here's our token of appreciation. Thank you for your time and efforts, and hopefully we'll see you soon again! Bgsu98(Talk)23:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,035 round points, mostly from 19 good articles and 21 did you know articles about athletes
vigilantcosmicpenguin (submissions) with 819 round points, mostly from 13 good articles and 11 did you know articles about a wide range of topics from abortion topics to African cities
TheNuggeteer (submissions) with 508 round points from 9 good articles, 4 good topic articles and 6 did you know articles mainly about Philippines topics, along with 19 good article reviews
The final round was very productive, and contestants had 2 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 106 good articles, 5 good topic articles, 178 article reviews, 76 did you know articles, and 9 in the news articles. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!
The top eight scorers will receive awards shortly. The following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. These prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field during the competition.
Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, with 12 featured articles total, and the featured topic prize, with 9 featured topic articles in total
AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, submitting the only featured picture in the entire contest during round 3
History6042 (submissions) wins the featured content reviewer prize, with 127 featured content reviews. He will also share the ITN prize, with 20 in the news articles in total.
BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the good article prize, with 100 good articles total, and the DYK prize, with 147 did you know articles in total. He will also share the ITN prize, with 20 in the news articles in total.
Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate. The WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2026 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!
Hello,there is user that changed the information on Mirzapur District about the language spoken there. Although earlier it was mentioned Bhojpuri is spoken which is true and its mentioned in everywhere from census to govt data. But a user kept changing it. I have asked someone who already a admin but he keep changing. I dont think there is need to dicuss when its clearly a wrong info. --Adrikshit (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I was wondering if you could revisit this change to the Laurence Sterne article. There are short references to "Sandhu 1998" and "Carretta 2015" inserted in the text, but they do not have an entry giving the full details in the references section. Could you supply this information to clear the reference errors? Keith D (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, thanks for the catch and my apologies! I was duplicating some material I'd written at Tristram Shandy that I considered an improvement, but forgot to bring over the full references too. Fixed now! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My Goal: To permanently add highly accurate, cited historical and geographical information about the Aguri / Ugra Kshatriya community to their Wikipedia page.
The Problem: The "Caste" topic area is under the Extended Confirmed Restriction (ECR). My account is too new (lacks 30 days / 500 edits), and all my previous, uncited, good-faith edits were quickly removed (due to WP:NOR/WP:V policy violations).
The Request: I need an experienced editor (with ECR status) to help me post two fully sourced, policy-compliant sections, or help me find the final, hard-to-access source needed for the most important claim.
Part 1: Section Ready for Immediate Posting (Surnames)
This section is complete and fully sourced to accepted ethnographical references (H.H. Risley, via Indpaedia).
Proposed Section Text:
As a community with strong historical ties to landholding, cultivation, and administration within the Rarh region, members of the Aguri (Ugra Kshatriya) community commonly carry a variety of surnames and titles. The most frequently identified family names associated with the community, particularly in Western Bengal (including the Bardhaman district), include:
**Chand**
**Chowdhuri**
**Dikpati**
**Hazra**
**Jana**
**Josh**
**Karfa**
**Khan**
**Konar**
**Kundu**
**Mandal**
**Nandi**
**Nayak**
**Panja**
**Roy** (or Ray)
**Rudra**
**Samanta**
**Sarkar**
Some of these titles, such as **Konar, Panja, Samanta,** and **Chowdhuri**, are specifically noted in ethnographical studies as being highly prevalent and are associated with their historical function as administrative or military titles.[1]
Part 2: High-Priority Section (Regional Concentration)
This section makes the most important claim (concentration in Paschim Bardhaman) --S.CHAND007 (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! This doesn’t appear to be a message addressed to a human? I’m a volunteer Wikipedia editor. I can answer your questions if you have any, or you can get a quicker response at our help forum. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
References
^"Aguri (Ugra Kshatriya)". Indpaedia (Citing H.H. Risley's Tribes and Castes of Bengal). Retrieved 8 November 2025.
Welcome! As your mentor I am available to answer any questions you may have while editing or offer advice. You can also always get help at our help forum for a faster response if you have a specific question. Happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question from MdArifulp88 (17:51, 12 November 2025)
This barnstar is given in recognition of your contributions to the October 2025 "What Women Do" Women in Green Good Article Editathon! Together, we nominated 27 Good Articles and conducted 19 GA reviews. We exceeded our goal, addressing 34 different occupations. Thank you for improving the quality of Wikipedia's coverage of women! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
I'm new to Wikipedia, but I've always been a connoisseur of knowledge- I'd love to help make an impact here in Wikipedia. However, getting used to the overall format and criteria for articles is something I'd like a bit of guidance on. Thanks <3! --71Moose (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 71Moose, and welcome! I've left a message on your talk page with some generally-useful links to get started. There's a lot to learn and it's not possible to take it all in at once, so I usually advice looking for articles on topics you're interested in and seeing if you can update or expand them a little at a time. That can be a good way to get your feet wet and learn the format by doing. If you have specific questions, I'm happy to answer, or you can often get a faster response at our help forum. Happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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.
Hello, LEvalyn. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:A Caricature Group, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in December!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than half a month of outstanding reviews from the current 2+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 December 2025 through 31 December 2025.
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.
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.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Hi LEvalyn. I think you'd be a really good admin. Have you considered standing for election? Just want you to know that I think you've demonstrated the ability to consider actions carefully, make good decisions, and be respectful when interacting with other editors. Your mentoring skills are certainly evident all over this talkpage. You'd have my support and, for the reasons stated, I'm assuming that of others at WiR. -- Rosiestep (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rosie, I am really touched by your confidence in me! I actually do plan to run in the current election, and am getting things ready with my nominators — so you’re in luck :) Thank you for your kind words and your encouragement. Fingers crossed it all goes well! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, LEvalyn! The list you nominated, Adaptations of Manon Lescaut, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am the son of Billy Cooper and have more information about his career. I have tried to add this but not done all of it. HAs a youth he played for 2 teams in York but i don't think this has been added.I have a signed contract for macclesfield in 1947-48 but it has not been added. Can you check his page and advise me how I add my information please. David Jack Cooper --Coventry collegeboy (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thanks for getting in touch! Your situation is a tricky one, because it sounds like you know a lot more than Wikipedia may be able to record. One of Wikipedia's principles is that all our information should be verifiable based on published sources, meaning people should be able to look things up somewhere to double-check. Focusing on published sources helps keep the encyclopedia reliable overall, but it does mean that sometimes we're not able to be completely thorough and accurate about details that experts know but which haven't been published.
In this case, I think the best thing for you to do would be to post on the discussion page for the article, just listing all the details you think are currently being left out. Then it would be possible for other Wikipedia editors to try looking in newspapers, yearbooks, etc to see if there are any published sources that can be used to add the information to the article itself. (Make sure to mention you have a "conflict of interest" as his son, as you did here-- Wikipedia requires editors to disclose connections like that. More info on that is here.)
There might also be a local historian interested in things like the signed contract. It's cool to have a historical record like that still around! If a local historian publishes something, the things they publish can then be used to add information to the Wikipedia article (since their work of reporting has made the information "verifiable").
Help wanted! Want to apply your skills or learn new ones? Help us plan monthly events, design event logos, come up with a tip-of-the-month, and/or provide any general ideas on developing the project.
Hm! It's a bit outside my wheelhouse, but it looks like the main weakness is in the sourcing. If I wanted to improve the article, I'd start by looking for the most thorough sources on the topic... especially ones more modern than Ancient Greece! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
¡Hola! Soy venezolana y mi idioma nativo es el español. Me di cuenta de que el idioma oficial de Wikipedia es el inglés. ¿Puedo ser editora, aunque no domine bien el inglés? --Gutgil (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Uso el Traductor de Google porque no hablo mucho español). ¡Hay una Wikipedia en español! Les encantará que contribuyas en https://es.wikipedia.org. Aquí, en la Wikipedia en inglés, es necesario contribuir en inglés. Si tienes un poco de inglés, quizás haya maneras de ayudar, pero es difícil. Mi consejo es que te unas a la Wikipedia en español. Gracias por preguntar, ¡y espero que disfrutes editando allí! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited She: A History of Adventure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ayesha.
Thank you for choosing to run in the December 2025 administrator elections. This bulletin contains some important information about the next stages of the election process.
As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:
December 2–3: Housekeeping phase (we are here)
December 4–8: Discussion phase
December 9–15: SecurePoll voting phase
Scrutineering phase
All times are in UTC. The first date in the range starts at 0:00, and the last date in the range ends at 23:59. So for example, the Discussion phase opens on December 4 at 0:00 UTC, and ends on December 8 at 23:59 UTC.
We are currently in the Housekeeping phase. Your candidate subpage will remain closed to questions and discussion. However, this is an excellent opportunity for you to recruit nominators (if you want them) and have them place their nomination statements, and a good time for you to answer the standard three questions, if you have not done so already. We recommend you spend this phase getting your candidate page polished and ready for the next phase.
The discussion phase will take place from December 4–8. Your candidate subpage will open to the public and they will be permitted to discuss you and ask you formal questions, in the same style as a request for adminship (RfA). You are strongly encouraged to be around on those dates to answer the formal questions in a timely manner.
On December 9, 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. Anyone can see who has voted, but not who they voted for. You are permitted and encouraged to vote in the election, including voting for yourself. 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 your vote total during the election.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which does not have an exact end date, but typically takes a few days to a week. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. For candidates that have not been recalled, in order to be granted adminship, you must receive at least 70% support, calculated as support ÷ (support + oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. For candidates that have been recalled, you must receive at least 55% 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 as a candidate, and best of luck.
You're receiving this message because you are a candidate in the December 2025 administrator elections.
On December 9, 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. 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 totals during the election. You must be extended confirmed to vote.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which typically lasts between a couple days and a week. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate who has not been recalled must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. A candidate that has been recalled must have at least 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.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Hi! I've mostly been working on motorsports pages, editing when I see fit. Soon I'd like to create a very simple user page, so my name isn't red, and also learn techniques for creating new pages - as I find that quite overwhelming right now. --Ofoxu (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome! You can start a simple user page by clicking on your own red name, and it will bring you to the interface to create an article. These help pages might help you navigate the interface. People often use their user page to write a few sentences about their interests, or display some userboxes (though that list of options probably won't help with the "overwhelming" feeling!). We suggest that you don't publish personal information about yourself, though.
Making a new article from scratch is a pretty involved process, so I wouldn't advise rushing into it. There is a LOT of good editing to do just improving existing articles. For example, this page has a list of all the articles associated with WP:WikiProject Motorsport that have been tagged with issues. Another overwhelming page for sure, but you could use it to, for example, find articles tagged as needing more recent updates and see if you can find official, published sources to update them with. (Or sometimes you'll discover that an article is totally fine, and in that case you can just delete the tag.)
Hello, I'd like to make corrections and add substantially to this bio of me, Roger Pilon, but I don't know how to begin. I've had decades of editing experience, but the instructions here are so voluminous that I'm overwhelmed. Do I, for example just click on the page and write and remove, as when editing a Word MS? That hasn't worked so far. Please advise. RP --Roger Pilon (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you say you want to propose substantial edits, it might actually be smoothest if you wrote the version you prefer in a "draft" first, and then make an "edit request" linking that draft for an uninvolved editor to review and incorporate into the main article. If you click on this red link: User:Roger Pilon/Roger Pilon revision draft, that will open up the interface to create a new article as a "user space draft". These help pages have more information on how to navigate the editing interface. (We actually have two interfaces; most people prefer to use the "Visual Editor", which lets you write a lot like MS Word.) You can start by copy-pasting the existing Roger Pilon in your draft to modify it; if the copy-paste doesn't transfer the way you want, let me know and I can help. Any time you want to save your work, click "publish" and write an "edit summary" of what you've done so far.
The most important (and likely most difficult) thing is to make sure every sentence only contains information that is cited to a published source. Since information on Wikipedia must be verifiable, we can't include things based on just your personal knowledge -- it has to be written somewhere. If you have questions as you work, feel free to ask me or visit our help forum. Happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear LEvalyn, In your warm welcoming Dec. 7 message you wrote that you would be my mentor as I work my way through the Wikipedia maze to replace my current thin and rather misleading bio with a more ample, neutral, well-sourced one. In fact, in 2023, the editors themselves said the current one needed work. And you suggested that it might be smoothest if I write a draft—indeed, who better knows the subject—and that I incorporate it in “User:Roger Pilon/Roger Pilon revision draft,” which I have done. Unfortunately, the template for doing so does not allow for my many textually embedded links or for my 45 endnotes to be keyed to the text, so the rich documentation is nowhere evident.
It is early, of course, but so far I have received little response: email messages from “A Frantic Turtle” and “Tacyarg,” both raising the COI issue, but neither relating it specifically to my draft. The closest to a substantive response came from “Diannaa” who also simply mentioned the COI issue but then added “lack of sources” and copyright issues, both of which I answered, as you’ll see at the “User” string, but neither of which, again, responded substantively to my draft.
Thus far, in short, no one has responded specifically to my draft. If you send me your email, I’d be glad to send you my submission in a more readable Word form, with richly embedded links (mostly to Wikipedia articles) and 45 multiple notes linked to the textual endnote numbers. As I said in my message last night to you, Tacyarg, and Diannaa, seeing that Word draft should put to rest any concern about documentation. In that message I also addressed the COI issue: if there such an issue, please show me, specifically, rather than merely mention the issue in a general way.
Finally, a careful reading of my draft will show that, far from being tendentious or controversial, it contains nothing but a series of well-documented factual statements about events in my life: Pilon wrote that; he testified this; he spoke here; he was awarded such and such; etc., etc. Conflict of interest? Where? Those are simply facts, all of which are true, demonstrably so, and demonstrated so, either in embedded links or in endnotes.
And they’re set forth in a systematic way, starting with a brief statement about who I am, followed by a very brief account of my life and education (with sites where more can be found), then a career history. I pause then to outline in more detail an issue that is only mentioned, misleadingly, in my current Wikipedia bio: namely, the litigation surrounding the allegation that I may have disclosed classified information when I served in the Justice Department. As I report in that section, I was cleared three times over the eight years that the case ran, and at the end of it I was awarded $250,000. All of that is factual and is documented in the NYT, WSJ, WaPo, and elsewhere, to say nothing of the appellate court’s opinion, all of which is found in the endnotes.
I then outline briefly my history of writings, testimonies, speeches, and awards—again, all factual statements, concluding with where a full record can be found. Finally, I discuss what all of that was about, starting with a broad account of the issues I addressed in my doctoral dissertation, then how I developed and applied those findings in my academic and government work, and did so especially once I joined the Cato Institute in 1988, first in the area of constitutional jurisprudence, then over more than a score of legal and constitutional subjects. And all of this, once again, is straightforward reportage. I’m simply reporting, in the voice of a third person, what I have done—and I’ve documented all of it.
Now, regarding Wikipedia’s discouraging writing about oneself, first, this draft is written in the voice of a third person; but second, and more to the point, are we to suppose that this could have been done, or done so well, by a Wikipedia editor with countless other unrelated drafts to attend to? Of course not. What I have set forth is simply, but properly, a neutral statement of facts, issues, and accomplishments of a man who, as Columbia University’s School of General Studies put it when celebrating the school’s 75th anniversary, is among “75 trailblazers who studied at GS—and transformed the world.” Those are not my words, but I’ll settle for them.
I realize that we’re in the holiday season and people are otherwise occupied with things other than editing—and this daft has been up just over the weekend—but as my mentor, I would welcome and appreciate your help in shepherding this project through to completion. As I wrote to you, Tacyarg, and Diannaa late last night, I am, after all, long in the tooth, as is said, and my obituary is fast upon me. I would like, therefore, to have out the world an accurate record of my service. Thank you, and Happy Holidays! Roger Pilon (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Roger Pilon, and my apologies for missing your replies over on your own Talk page! I appreciate that you're doing your best to follow Wikipedia's many complicated processes, and we really would rather have a well-written and well-referenced article about you. At a glance, the draft you've written would be a big improvement, if all of the footnotes were working properly to show how it was appropriately cited. It's a bit unusual, but in this instance, I would be willing to do the technical reference-formatting work for you if you send me the original Word document. Special:EmailUser will let you send me an email if you provide my username, LEvalyn. I don't believe it will let you attach a document right away, but use it to get in touch and I will write back to figure out the document. Once I've taken a closer look at it in the reference-formatting process, I may also have other questions or suggestions for the draft. I may not be very speedy with it since I am on vacation until the new year, but I will do my best to help. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, Ilovereading-pjo! Writing an article is a tricky place to start, because it throws you right into the deep end of our policies about which subjects are eligible to have articles. You'd need to start by reading our criteria for musicians and confirming you can find enough published sources to show that they meet one of them. I'm happy to answer questions about the sources you find. From there, you might take a look at some advice for first-time article writers here and here. Usually, it's best to spend some time improving existing articles while you learn the ropes. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Welcome to Wikipedia, Aleesadeeq2025! For the article to be published, it has to be submitted through our Articles for Creation process. I added the template to your draft for you so you can submit it when it's ready, but I should want you that the draft is a long way from being ready for submission. To be published the article needs to have all its information cited to a reliable source, and it has to show that the subject meets our criteria to have an article. I suggest reading this advice and spending some time researching before you work on the writing, to make sure suitable sources exist. I'm happy to offer advice on the sources you find. Finally, you should read our policies around writing about people you know and using AI. If you have questions, feel free to ask me or at our help forum any time. Happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Aleesadeeq2025 -- looking at your edits, the only article I can find is User:Aleesadeeq2025/sandbox, which has not been submitted for review. The "publish" button is more like a "save" button; it's normal to edit in stages and "publish" new changes frequently. You can click the "Edit" button on the top of the page and continue adding whatever you think is missing. When it's done, you can submit it for review by clicking the "Submit" button and another editor will evaluate whether it is ready to appear in the main encyclopedia.
I want to add pictures to the article on nail biting what should I do. Also I wanted to change the article on plum pa. Is it okay if I do that and what basics should I know --Hthegreat (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia! You might find the information at Help:Pictures useful. In general, when making changes to articles the process is to be bold and then see if your changes reach consensus with other editors. Improving existing articles is the best way to get started. If you have more questions, feel free to ask me or post at our help forum any time. Happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:52, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am a new (and probably only short term) "Wikipedia Editor" and have a couple of questions and/or a request for a little bit of help with something.
I an a retired chemist and patent attorney, and I was one of the World's early "Green Chemists". in retirement I decided the conventional histories of "Green Chemistry" were badly distorted and inaccurate, and needed correction. So over the last several years I have written and published seven peer-reviewed articles to correct the histories of "Green Chemistry" and "Pollution Prevention". I have now finished writing new articles on those topics, but noticed that the Wikipedia article on those two topics contained the old distortions, and believe they are in dire need of some corrections.
So over the last couple of days I have tried my first Wikipedia edits, to correct the articles on both "Green Chemistry" and "Pollution Prevention in the United States". I have already added historical sections to both those articles, I think you (or someone with special interests in Science and History) will find my new edits interesting and worthwhile, your opinions and any suggestions are solicited.
But there is one change I think really needs to be made that as a rookie Wikipedia editor I can't make for myself. I strongly believe the title of "Pollution Prevention in the United States" needs to be shortened to "Pollution Prevention", but I understand that only well established editors can change a title. Today I posted my reasons for wanting that change in the "talk" section of that article. But I need help from you or another experienced editor to make that change.
Could you take a quick look at the changes I made to both articles, and my post about my desire to shorten the title of the "Pollution Prevention" article and offer me any suggestions you may have about you or another experienced editor can help me get the title change done?
Hello! I was wondering if you would be able to go through my first edits and let me know how I can improve for future editing. I really enjoyed working through this page. --KatherineRFitch (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, KatherineRFitch, and thanks for jumping in to make improvements at youth center! It looks like you've expanded an article that was in need of attention, and moved in a good direction. I do have two suggestions on how you can continue to improve:
Wikipedia prioritizes having information be verifiable, which is a little different from true-- every piece of information added to an article should have a footnote citation to a reliable published source that a reader could check to confirm it. For example, Many youth centers hold different sessions to educate young people about different topics regarding their health, e.g., contraception is certainly true, but there is no source being cited to verify it. (Uncited information like that is sort of a gray zone-- anybody can delete it any time, and it can't be re-added unless there's a source, but it doesn't have to be deleted.) Usually, we expand short articles by finding a really good source first, and then summarizing the key information from it.
Wikipedia's prose style aims to be extremely neutral. The advice at WP:NPOV and WP:Wikipuffery might be relevant here. It takes time to learn how to write like an encyclopedia, and I notice some sentences like The intrinsic value of youth centers is that they meet the needs of the community through cooperation, which empowers responsible thinking, inclusivity, and healthy relationships which are more of the "youth center POV". In this specific case, citing a source would also be a great way to help with the POV: we could begin the sentence with According to X research on youth centers... or According to Y youth center organization... and then the article wouldn't be using "Wikipedia's voice" to declare the intrinsic value of youth centers.
I notice some other "style guide" things (eg, external links shouldn't go within the article text) but there are hundreds of little things like that and it's impossible to learn them all at once. The best way is to start with the big picture (like verifiability and neutral point of view), do your best each time, and learn the details as you go. One of our other key principles is to be bold! I am happy to answer more questions any time, and you can also ask at our help forum for a quicker response. Happy editing! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you, doublegrazing, and Asilvering are discussing my article The haven by Richard Dube. I just want my page in the mainspace where it belongs.
Hopefylly stop or pause the messages from Izno, StarMississippi, Theroadislong and Meters.
I often take an interest at book articles submitted as Articles for Creation and will be happy to take a look at yours when I return from vacation in a few days. In the meantime (not knowing yet what might be needed), my user page User:LEvalyn has some links to advice that can be helpful for writing book articles. Happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations LEvalyn! Your RfA was successful. You are now an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I hope you have just as happy a time editing in the future as you did before your RfA. You may want to look at the admin guide to read up on any tools you are unfamiliar with.
Congratulations LEvalyn! And now, per "ancient tradition" (i.e. 2022), it is my great pleasure to pass on this baton to you. Tamzin gave it to DanCherek, who passed it along from admin to admin until Left guide gave it to me. Having 342 editors support you is really impressive and should be something to be proud of! It's weird having so many new buttons, isn't it?
Becoming an administrator can be a bit overwhelming, so I'll pass on the advice that was given to our AElect batch by Chaotic Enby: we have a pretty helpful guide, but the true secret is to be unafraid to ask others for help and guidance. You'll suddenly get so many new buttons, and it's okay to not know what each and every one of them does right off the bat. On your first days, you can start with areas you feel most confident in: there is no pressure to use the tools everywhere at once, or even to use them immediately at all!
It's an honor to pass the baton off to you. Enjoy it, look at it, give it a couple twirls, but don't hold on to it for too long! Since you're the last AELECT admin, so now it's your job to convince someone to run for RFA! Congratulations , I'm sure you'll make an amazing admin. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. If I make an error in my editing, lets say a misinformation because I used a fake source giving fake info, what would happen and if so, would the wikipedia found about it and delete it? I'm not saying that I will give bad info, but by accident if it happens, will it happen? Thanks --Godzilla1214 (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Godzilla1214, and welcome to Wikipedia! Many editors use Special:Watchlist to be informed when there are changes to articles that interest them. When new information is added to an article, all the editors "watching" that article will be informed and they can check it out. (There are also editors who "watch" every change at Special:RecentChanges!) If someone spots the mistake, they will undo the change. Important pages often have a lot of people watching them, so problems will be reversed quickly. Depending on the mistake they might also decide to write you a message explaining how to avoid the same problem in the future. Everyone makes mistakes, so an honest error can be part of the learning process here, though if someone has a pattern of frequently adding misinformation even when warned to stop, they may be blocked from making future article edits. All the editors here are volunteers so it's good to be mindful of others' efforts and try not to create more work for them. You may also find it interesting to read this page about how Wikipedia articles reach "consensus". If you have any other questions as you edit, feel free to ask me or our help forum! Happy editing! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LEvalyn, it has been great to get to know you over the past couple of months. Thank you for the time you spend helping newcomers, thank you for the interesting perspectives you bring to various issues, and thank you for all the content you created! Congratulations on becoming an admin—80% in EFA is absolutely nothing to sneeze at, and you absolutely earned it. Happy holidays, and the best to you and yours in the new year!
Thank you for your warm wishes! It's been a pleasure, and I'm happy to have become your colleague in the admin corps! I'm also really touched that you have included an image of one of My Funny Old Guys 🥲 ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 07:24, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have just joined Wikipedia and made an edit to the page "Conduit Street", adding information & references in the properties section on No 57. I would be grateful if you could look at what I have done to check its in accordance with Wikipedia policies.
Thank you Ed --EdTailoring (talk) 10:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello EdTailoring, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm delighted that you've jumped in with improving an article which certainly has room for expansion, and you've done a great job of making sure there is a source for the information and formatting it appropriately. I do notice that you are using primary sources, which is permitted but a bit discouraged. (That link has more info.) In this case the specific additions look OK but it's something to keep in mind.
I also notice an interest in tailoring suggested by your username -- you may also want to read our guidelines about "conflicts of interest"; Wikipedia has a pretty broad definition of "conflict of interest" so if you've personally met tailors at No 57 Conduit St you may want to read those guidelines carefully. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have on that front.
Many thanks for having a look at the edit I have made. Noted re the comments about primary sources & conflict of interest. I have read the info link so understand these better now. I have not met the tailors at No 57. Regards EdTailoring (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies I hit the reply button in error before finishing my message above. I have not met the tailors at No 57 Conduit Street, but they are my ancestors, although I never met them. The tailoring firm was run by them, but is no longer in existence. I take from your advice on COI I need to declare any interest in any future proposed edits. Regards EdTailoring (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shiny new tools might be used to mete out justice, mercy or a dose of reality. Let us commit to not losing our cool when using them. Our only armor is the entire community's trust. We wear it for each other, each new contributor, and each new generation to come. May you ever be the community's champion. BusterD (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy holidays, and congrats on becoming an admin! I'm sure you'll do well with it. I'll offer an ear if you run into anything complicated, but with the caveat that you'll almost certainly find someone more competent than me. Hope the new year treats you well, Rjjiii (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind wishes, and one can never have too many supportive ears!! I hope you are having some rest at the end of the year, and you have my warmest wishes for 2026. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 09:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026.
The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability.
Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive.
Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants.
Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points.
Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds.
Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
Hi there, I am quite new as an editor to wikipedia and was wondering where should I start to know more about how to upload pictures, add and use proper citations and write good articles? Like what should i read to better understand the guidelines. Currently I carry out simple edits but plan to do more in the future and make several pages :). Thank youu ^_^ --SomeLoreDude (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello SomeLoreDude, and welcome! I've left a message with some getting-started links on your talk page; the guide at Help:Introduction will help with things like pictures and citations. If you're ever wondering "what is the Wikipedia way to write about X?" you may also find it helpful to look things up in our Manual of Style. In general, getting good at wiki writing is a matter of practice and observation, and going down the rabbit holes of links in various guideline pages. To start you off I'll suggest WP:5P and WP:BOLD. If you want to write really good articles, there's a peer review process at WP:GA and you could consider working your way up to being a reviewer there. We're happy to have you, and feel free to ask me or our help forum any time you have questions! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 09:19, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to write an article about DAVIDE RIMOLDI but I do not find where. Can you help me? There is no article about me yet. I am known in the Tourism industry AND would like to add it. Thanks --Davide Rimoldi (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia makes it so hard to submit content for a page. I just published a page, but could you please review it to make sure it meets Wikipedia standards? --UWorld LLC (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)
