BETA SAÚDE
User talk:LEvalyn
Texto da Wikipédia (en), licença CC BY-SA. O BETARUBI mostra o verbete inteiro nesta página — a leitura não continua fora do site.
Arbitration Case opened
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, DatGuyTalkContribs 10:35, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hello. Thank you for the notification. I acknowledge that the arbitration case has been opened. I will review the case pages and, if appropriate, submit any relevant evidence before the evidence deadline. Thank you for the information. Momi Hauwa (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Momi Hauwa, this is my Talk page, not yours -- these are all message intended for me. So, for example, you do not need to take any action regarding this ArbCom case (which is already closed). Your own talk page, with messages directed at you, will be at User talk:Momi Hauwa. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Gregor Clemens
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)
- 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)
- I did a scant bit of research myself and don't see high hopes for Clemens' article. The only thing I could find besides the FashionUnited article I added was this. Strange that he seems to have disappeared off the face of the Internet in 2010, after building up to debut in London as a "sustainable" fashion show running on a self-titled label... -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for helping. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to look into it and for finding that additional source. I agree that the available coverage seems quite limited at the moment. I'll do a more thorough WP:BEFORE search to see if there are any significant independent sources that have been missed. If no substantial coverage turns up, then it may be appropriate to leave the notability concerns in place or consider AfD. I appreciate your help with the research. Momi Hauwa (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for helping. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
July 2026
 Events:
Announcements, tips, participation... Announcements from other communities: 
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
WikiCup 2026 July newsletter
The third round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 28 June at 23:59 (UTC). As a reminder, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, while peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 3 will advance to round 4 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.
Round 3 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points; eight scored over 500; and thirteen scored over 300. The top three contestants had at least one featured article (two of them with two apiece). The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:
MCE89 (submissions) with 1567 points, mainly from good and featured articles about Australian people and geography, as well as some article reviews
Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1547 points, mainly from good articles, featured articles, featured lists, and a good topic about figure skating, along with 20 article reviews
Reconrabbit (submissions) with 1004 points, mainly from a high-multiplier featured article on European rabbit and several good articles, DYKs, and reviews
A.Cython (submissions) with 1004 points, mainly from good articles about warfare, along with 22 article reviews
Generalissima (submissions) with 859 points, mainly from good and featured articles about rivers and East Asian topics
The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 12 featured articles, 12 featured lists, 7 featured-topic articles, 117 good articles, 74 good-topic articles and more than 30 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 13 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 180 reviews. The tournament points table has been updated.
Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed in Round 4. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! 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) 13:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
July 10: Free Culture Friday / Wiki Loves Fútbol Watch Party
| July 10: Free Culture Friday @ Prime Produce | |
|---|---|
 You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our Free Culture Friday / Wiki Loves Fútbol World Cup Watch Party at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome! This special event will feature starting at 1:30 pm a Wikimedia Foundation meet-and-greet bringing together local staff and community, and then at 3 pm a Wiki Loves Fútbol watch party and edit-a-thon for the Second Quarter-Final, 2026 FIFA World Cup (Q137545497). All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct and Photography Policy. Meeting info:
| |
(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) 19:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
Question from MatthewPalatnik (11:56, 3 July 2026)
Hello! I have used my sandbox to translate and correctly format an article from French wikipedia. How would I go about getting it published on English wikipedia? I have checked and there is no equivalent article and I would like for the information to be available in English --MatthewPalatnik (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- Hello MatthewPalatnik, my apologies for the slow response but I am really glad you are interested in this!! I am pinging asilvering as an editor who will be better placed to answer your question, since I haven't done any translation myself. Happy editing!! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- thank you! I appreciate your taking the time and hope that my translation is of decent quality; I was able to add some additional citations too so I hope I've formatted those correctly MatthewPalatnik (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Hi @MatthewPalatnik, thanks for the translation! I've accepted your draft, but I was only able to do so after adding a new reference to the "further reading" section. The reason for this is that all articles on English wikipedia need to meet WP:GNG (a much shorter version: WP:42). French Wikipedia isn't as strict with this as English Wikpedia is, so not all topics that have articles on fr-wiki are necessarily ok to translate directly to en-wiki. This one is fine though. There are a few sentences without citations - would you be able to add footnotes for that information? I assume that it's reasonably obvious stuff for anyone that has read the sources, so I'm not super concerned there, but in practice it's good to cite everything. I've made a few other fixes and left a talk page notice - let me know if you have any questions about any of that. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- hello @Asilvering thank you! Yes I will add references to anything you think requires them, though you'll have to give me until tomorrow as it is nighttime in my timezone currently MatthewPalatnik (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- No rush! In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- I have added further information and citations to the page. I have also noted that I need to attribute the original to French Wikipedia. However I am a bit confused about the exact formatting. Would you be able to link to an example so I can have a look at it?
- best, MP MatthewPalatnik (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- I've already done it for you, in this edit. In the future, you can just copy the exact message that's on your talk page (NOTE: Content in the edit of 01:25, January 25, 2023 was translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Exact name of French article]]; see its history for attribution.) and swap in the article name for "Exact name of French article" and an appropriate date for the first part. If you remember to do it in the initial edit, you can swap "the edit of 01:25, January 25, 2023" for just "this edit". The exact wording isn't important. Basically, an edit summary needs to link back to the page you're translating from. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- No rush! In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- hello @Asilvering thank you! Yes I will add references to anything you think requires them, though you'll have to give me until tomorrow as it is nighttime in my timezone currently MatthewPalatnik (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Hi @MatthewPalatnik, thanks for the translation! I've accepted your draft, but I was only able to do so after adding a new reference to the "further reading" section. The reason for this is that all articles on English wikipedia need to meet WP:GNG (a much shorter version: WP:42). French Wikipedia isn't as strict with this as English Wikpedia is, so not all topics that have articles on fr-wiki are necessarily ok to translate directly to en-wiki. This one is fine though. There are a few sentences without citations - would you be able to add footnotes for that information? I assume that it's reasonably obvious stuff for anyone that has read the sources, so I'm not super concerned there, but in practice it's good to cite everything. I've made a few other fixes and left a talk page notice - let me know if you have any questions about any of that. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- thank you! I appreciate your taking the time and hope that my translation is of decent quality; I was able to add some additional citations too so I hope I've formatted those correctly MatthewPalatnik (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Question from MKSekar Dc (05:33, 5 July 2026)
Hi LEvalyn , pls check my contributions and share your suggestion how is it ? --MKSekar Dc (talk) 05:33, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- Hello MKSekar Dc, and welcome to Wikipedia! It looks like you're mostly interested in editing modern tech articles, which isn't an area where I have a lot of expertise (I mostly write about 18thC books), but I would suggest you make sure you're familiar with WP:DUE, WP:RS, and WP:CONTROVERSY. Also, in case you find yourself getting into disagreements with other editors, you should take a look at this explanation of our consensus-building process. I also left a message on your talk page with some more general helpful links as you're getting started. Happy editing! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Good Article Gazette, Issue 16
| Ongoing discussions | News | Current statistics |
|---|---|---|
|
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
Question from NightFuryyy (12:46, 8 July 2026)
Hey can you give me some tips --NightFuryyy (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
- Hello NightFuryyy, and welcome to Wikipedia! I left a message on your talk page that has some helpful information about getting started. Happy editing! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
You're invited to the Mentorship noticeboard
Hi, LEvalyn. You are cordially invited to the brand new Wikipedia:Mentorship noticeboard. I get the impression sometimes that we mentors are each toiling in our own cubbyhole or hamster wheel, quietly answering mentee questions with little to no interaction with other mentors. I think we have a lot to share and learn from each other, and I know it will make me feel better just having the opportunity to interact with you and other mentors there, and I hope it will for you, too. Looking forward to hearing your feedback. Please take the § Survey when you get there! Mathglot (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
- Hi, Mathglot. Thank you for the invitation! I appreciate you letting me know about the new Mentorship noticeboard. It sounds like a great initiative, and I look forward to checking it out, participating in the discussions, and completing the survey. Thanks again for reaching out! Momi Hauwa (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Momi Hauwa, just to clarify here -- the survey and noticeboard are intended for mentors, not mentees! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Question from Momi Hauwa (16:52, 12 July 2026)
How to write a good article --Momi Hauwa (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Hello Momi Hauwa, and welcome to Wikipedia! I left a message on your talk page that has some helpful information about getting started, including how to write a great article. Happy editing! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Hello! Thank you for the warm welcome and for leaving the helpful resources on my talk page. I appreciate your support and look forward to learning more and contributing positively to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Momi Hauwa (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Nomination of Anthony Walsh (author) for deletion
- Thank you for the notification. I understand that the article is currently being discussed at Articles for Deletion. I will review the concerns raised in the discussion and, if appropriate, provide my comments based on Wikipedia's notability, sourcing, and content policies. I appreciate being informed about the ongoing review. Momi Hauwa (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
These updates are delivered by SodiumBot. To opt out of these messages, add {{User:SodiumBot/NoNPPDelivery}} to your talk page.
Articles for Creation backlog drive
Hello LEvalyn:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in August!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than a month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 August 2026 through 31 August 2026.
You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 5000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
- If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
May 2026 Administrator Elections – RFC Phase
The RFC phase of the May 2026 administrator elections has started. There are 20 RFCs for consideration. You can participate in the RFC phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/RFC phase.
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
 |
The Teamwork Barnstar |
| For coordinating the June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 20 July 2026 (UTC) |
Good Article Gazette, Issue 17
| Ongoing discussions | News | Current statistics |
|---|---|---|
|
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
July 29: WikiWednesday NYC Salon, Post-Wikimania Edition
| July 29: 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 will feature stories from our local Wikimedia community, a session with Annie Rauwerda of Depths of Wikipedia, plus fresh recaps from members who just returned from Wikimania 2026 in Paris. All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct and Photography Policy. Meeting info:
| |
(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) 21:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
Advice
Hey, I hope you are doing well and having a lovely week :) I wanted to please ask for some advice since you reviewed my nomination of The Butterfly Club and I really appreciated your expertise. I wanted to write an article for the 2022 Jacqueline Wilson novel BabyLove. I plan on using these sources for the article, but I wanted to ask if you think these ones ( ) are suitable for inclusion? I found it hard to tell on whether they count as reliable for reviews etc or not. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
- Hey? :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, and sorry for ghosting you on this one! I've been less available for Wikipedia lately and don't always get back to the 'complicated' questions... but here's my take! I'd say you definitely can't use the Storygraph review, because it's functionally the same as WP:GOODREADS, ie, user-generated content. Booknook is a non-independent bookseller page, so it could only be used for non-subjective information like the fact that there is a paperback edition. I like the Historical Association reviews, though! I'd say it's important to specify that the reviews are by young readers rather than professionals, but they have been authoritatively curated and published by a reputable organization so they aren't "user-generated" and I think they add some great range to the article. For the other sources you mentioned planning to use, the London Bookshop one is also a non-independent bookseller so it would need great caution like Boonook. All the rest look great! This sounds like a really interesting book that definitely deserves an article, glad to see you taking it on! Good luck with it! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Hey? :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
Thanks a potential YGM
Hey LEvalyn, thanks for the addition at GA model reviews. While I have you - I tried to send you an email yesterday re some potential sources for tagine, although I'm not sure it went through as an error appeared. Did you happen to receive it? If not, and if you are interested, feel free to send me an email and I can pass on a doc with some potential sources. Whonting (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- I did not receive it! I will email you now about tagine, thank you. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Good Article Gazette, Special issue
| Ongoing discussions | Current statistics | |
|---|---|---|
|
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Women in Red – August 2026
 Events:
More ... Announcements:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Chocmilk03 (talk 21:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Question from Jose Lopez "Josmay Lopez" (08:05, 1 August 2026)
Hola quiero generar mi perfil para la gente que se sigue sepa mas de mi ya que soy cantante --Jose Lopez "Josmay Lopez" (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
WikiNYC Sun Aug 9: Roosevelt Island Wiknic 2026
| August 9: Wiknic @ Roosevelt Island | |
|---|---|
 You are invited to the picnic anyone can edit on Roosevelt Island, at Southpoint Park. Please dress for the weather/sun and bring a blanket (or two) or a lawn chair for seating; we will be having this picnic on the grass. Sunshades are also welcome. Bring some potluck as well as some board games to add to the fun! All are welcome, new and experienced! Sunday, August 9, 2026 Wiknic @ Roosevelt Island
All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct and Photography Policy. | |
(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) 01:50, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
Question from SimeonSennisTex (11:10, 10 August 2026)
How do i create an article about @macedoniasennistexbird on tiktok --SimeonSennisTex (talk) 11:10, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- The first step is to confirm that they meet Wikipedia's criteria to have a biography article. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Isobel Grundy
Hello, LEvalyn. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Isobel Grundy".
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.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 18:43, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
Aug 26 WikiWednesday NYC Salon + Membership and Events Manager hiring
| We're hiring: Wikimedia NYC Membership and Events Manager | |
|---|---|
| August 26: 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 theme will be: "Meet your chapter board members, grow the local community!" All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct and Photography Policy. Meeting info:
| |
(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) 03:28, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
Thank you
For your very helpful remarks and suggestions at the Trouble... page. If I may suggest, I have one more literature-related GAN, that is now in the second round, after rewrite the previous reviewer, The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. You may enjoy reading it, and I hope it won't be a very hard review :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:30, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Organized Labour September Editing Event
You're invited to join the Organized Labour community editing event, a cross-wiki event taking place throughout September 2026!
The campaign brings together Wikimedians interested in improving coverage of organised labour, workers, trade unions, and labour history. We have confirmed collaborations with Wikipedia language editions in English, Dutch, Persian, Serbo-Croatian and French. If you want to add other language editions or other wiki projects you are strongly encouraged to do so! This event spans geography and languages!
This is a one-time invitation. You're receiving it because you previously signed a petition related to Wiki Workers United (WWU). We hope you'll join us!
AfC August Backlog Drive: Only ten days left!
Hi LEvalyn, thanks for participating in the Articles for Creation August Backlog Drive! We've done amazing work so far, dropping the backlog by more than 3000 drafts already. We have around 1300 drafts outstanding, and we need your help to get that down to zero in the next 10 days. We can do this, but we need all hands on deck to help make it happen – if everyone who signed up to the drive reviewed just 1–2 drafts a day for the next ten days, we'd be down to zero in no time! A list of the pending drafts can be found at WP:AFCSORT, where you can select submissions in your area of interest, or you can find a random submission here. Thank you so much for your work so far, and happy reviewing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
Question regarding Draft:X Rubicon decline
Hello LEvalyn, thank you for taking the time to review Draft:X Rubicon. I am a new editor trying to navigate the WP:NBOOK guidelines, and I was hoping you could offer a bit of specific guidance regarding my sources.
The draft currently relies on two primary pillars for notability: a mainstream review in Independent Australia, and a professional review from the American Library Association (ALA). Additionally, the text has been formally cataloged into the Special Collections of the National Library of Ireland (NLI), complete with a board statement on its inclusion.
I suspect the issue might be my formatting. Because I wanted to prevent link-rot, I linked the ALA review and the NLI board statement using archive.org URLs. Did this cause them to be mistaken for self-published uploads, or does an American Library Association review genuinely not satisfy the WP:NBOOK criteria for independent secondary coverage?
If it is just a formatting issue, how would you recommend I format the citation so the ALA review is properly recognized by the AfC reviewers? I appreciate any guidance you can provide! Matteson-Warfield (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, a core problem is that I can't verify the ALA review. You need to link directly to wherever the ALA reviewed it, even if that's paywalled. I searched their review magazine, Booklist, and didn't find anything. To properly prevent linkrot, use the Internet Archive's "wayback machine" to save websites, rather than uploading your own copy of the test to IA; the wayback machine preserves the provenance of the link so it remains verifiable. The same problem would apply to the NLI board statement, except also the board statement is not a relevant source; being catalogued in special collections does not contribute towards Wikipedia's book article criteria and typically does not merit a mention in the article. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for the clarification, LEvalyn. This is incredibly helpful.
- I completely misunderstood the provenance of the ALA review (it was printed inside the book itself, not published independently in Booklist), so I have removed it entirely to strictly adhere to WP:SPS. I also understand your point regarding WP:NBOOK and library cataloging, and have removed the NLI and Special Collections mentions.
- I have reformatted the citations for the remaining independent reviews (Independent Australia, NNOMY, and Peace Resource Center of San Diego). The NNOMY organization was recently hacked and their site is down until September, so I followed your exact advice: I removed my manual IA uploads and replaced them with proper Wayback Machine (web.archive.org) snapshot URLs to preserve the provenance of the links.
- I have updated the draft. Thank you for taking the time to explain the difference between the IA uploads and the Wayback Machine! Matteson-Warfield (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
Question from Oldtimetelephones (14:28, 22 August 2026)
Hello, this is Oldtimetelephones. In a Wikipedia page called "Telephone Call," there is a section called "First Telephone Call." That section has poor reference citations and contains errors. I would like to replace that whole section (it is short) with a much more complete section with primary references. I am an experiienced and published writer. --Oldtimetelephones (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Welcome Oldtimetelephones, and thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! It sounds like you have a lot to offer this article and I encourage you to follow the Wikipedia guideline to be WP:BOLD and make changes to the article! Focus on citing good sources for every sentence that you add or change (they don't have to be online sources) and I am sure you can make some major improvements. If someone notices any problems, they might undo you change, at which point you can post on the Talk page to work out a mutually-agreeable change -- we call that the bold, revert, discuss method of finding consensus. If you have any questions as you work or anything seems to go wrong, feel free to ask and I am happy to help! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, I've just noticed on your user page that you mention working from primary sources -- one thing that makes Wikipedia different from academia (including academic encyclopedias) is that primary sources are very rarely considered appropriate. Instead, Wikipedia aims to be a tertiary source that simply summarizes secondary sources, even when the secondary sources are wrong. Take a look at our policy forbidding "original research" for more info. However, citing your own secondary publication is acceptable, as long as it's not done in a promotional way (ie, make sure you also cite other scholars!) Let me know if you have any questions. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you. Your comments are very helpful as I don't know my way around Wikipedia yet. Most of my citations of original documents support quotations, and I think they should be okay. Others refer to patent filings and involve no analysis or judgment, so those should be okay also. I already posted a change to the Wikipedia page, "Telephone Call," and I'll go back and make sure the original references are okay. Almost all of the references to my own work are peer reviewed and published by reputable publishers, so I think those should be acceptable as well since I'm a recognized expert. Please let me know if the above reasoning is okay. Oldtimetelephones (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Your reasoning sounds solid to me, and the specific sources you've added at telephone call don't immediately raise any red flags for me. But it looks like the formatting is in IEEE, rather than using Wikipedia's clickable footnotes. You may find it useful to take a look at this guide. Those instructions assume you are using the "visual editor", which most people find more intuitive to start with; this training page explains the two kinds of editor and how to use them, including how to add citations. Let me know if you'd like me to get things started by converting a few of the citations so you can see how it looks afterward.
- I'd also note that some of the writing you've added is very elegant and confident academic prose and, well, Wikipedia's typical 'style' is sadly a bit different. Wikipedia needs citations for 'framing' statements too, such as
It is generally believed that the first telephone call was on March 10, 1876
. I agree completely that this is the famous, generally believed origin story but Wikipedia's goal of verifiability would require citing a secondary source which specifically identifies this as the widespread belief alongside two other possible claims. If you don't have such a source readily to hand, the article could present a somewhat clunkier narrative which simply presents each of the events in chronological order without that evaluative framing. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2026 (UTC)- Yes, I can find a good secondary source for that. Tomorrow. Thanks again. ~2026-46074-71 (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Just made the changes. Is this better? I plan to add some pictures when they have been posted on Wikimedia Commons. Oldtimetelephones (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, the footnotes look great! It will be great to have images too when you can do them. :) ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- Just made the changes. Is this better? I plan to add some pictures when they have been posted on Wikimedia Commons. Oldtimetelephones (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I can find a good secondary source for that. Tomorrow. Thanks again. ~2026-46074-71 (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you. Your comments are very helpful as I don't know my way around Wikipedia yet. Most of my citations of original documents support quotations, and I think they should be okay. Others refer to patent filings and involve no analysis or judgment, so those should be okay also. I already posted a change to the Wikipedia page, "Telephone Call," and I'll go back and make sure the original references are okay. Almost all of the references to my own work are peer reviewed and published by reputable publishers, so I think those should be acceptable as well since I'm a recognized expert. Please let me know if the above reasoning is okay. Oldtimetelephones (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, I've just noticed on your user page that you mention working from primary sources -- one thing that makes Wikipedia different from academia (including academic encyclopedias) is that primary sources are very rarely considered appropriate. Instead, Wikipedia aims to be a tertiary source that simply summarizes secondary sources, even when the secondary sources are wrong. Take a look at our policy forbidding "original research" for more info. However, citing your own secondary publication is acceptable, as long as it's not done in a promotional way (ie, make sure you also cite other scholars!) Let me know if you have any questions. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
Question from Oldtimetelephones on User:Oldtimetelephones (18:25, 22 August 2026)
how to upload a photo for my user page --Oldtimetelephones (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Images have to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons before they can be added here -- you may find this guide helpful: Help:Introduction to images with VisualEditor/1. However, I would strongly advise against uploading a photo of yourself -- it is very hard to take personal information 'back' once it i is 'out there', and Wikipedians typically work anonymously. You may like to upload some photos of telephones, however. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
Errors kept in place
I take it you are not now going to help with this, which is understandable, even though it would be good for the community to have well-written guidelines. However, there are also regular articles that have been affected by this. The intro to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz contains a chronological error which is apparent if one reads the second chapter, or just knows the story. This error has been repeatedly restored just because. At Mark Geragos, an obvious date mixup has been restored 25 times, and the page has been extended-confirmed protected to keep that error in place. ~2026-46223-43 (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
New pages patrol September 2026 Backlog drive
| September 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol |  |
| |
| 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) 22:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
Women in Red - September 2026
 Events:
More ... Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging