LEvalyn

Question from Daniel Ocean05 (22:24, 8 January 2024)

Hello - I recently made additions to the page - United_States_at_the_2024_Winter_Youth_Olympics - I included the recently announced qualifiers for the men's and women's luge events. The edits have since been taken down. I've tried to look around and find out why, but can't find anything. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. --Daniel Ocean05 (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Daniel Ocean05, and welcome to Wikipedia! I’m happy to offer some advice/clarity, but I don’t see any recent edits by your username at 2024 Winter Youth Olympics. Did you maybe edit while not logged in? That’s ok if so, but can you take a look at the history of edits to that article and give me a link to the one(s) that we’re undone? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Would this link help? This shows the edits I added, and the current version which deleted my edits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_at_the_2024_Winter_Youth_Olympics&diff=1194199997&oldid=1194109546 Daniel Ocean05 (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Daniel Ocean05, yes that link helps quite a lot! Or at least... they help me see what happened, but I honestly can't figure out why. You included a source and the information looks totally appropriate to me. It may be that the other editor didn't want to include so much detail about the competitors (preferring to keep times etc on the main Luge article)... but I also wonder if it was just an accident of some kind.

The best way to get an answer would probably be to start a discussion on the article's talk page, and tag the other editor (with something like {{ping|username here}} ) to start a conversation about it. But I'm not entirely sure that's necessary, since it looks like the article is developing well regardless. You might consider the whole thing an example of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle (with it being up to you whether it's time for the Discuss stage).

Thank you for your work in this area, and good luck with your continued contributions! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Special Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		You made a new user (me!) feel really appreciated and helpful here on wiki! And you gave an amazing explanation for why you revoked one of my edits, all today. Thank you! Arcade Wise (they/them) (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Arcade Wise (they/them) (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Question from CowQueen123 (19:06, 24 January 2024)

hi, how do you edit wikapedia --CowQueen123 (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi CowQueen123, and welcome to wikipedia! You might find this tutorial helpful in getting started. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red February 2024

Women in Red | February 2024, Volume 10, Issue 2, Numbers 293, 294, 297, 298 Online events: New: Alphabet run O & P | Black women Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcement Please let other wikiprojects know about our February Black women event. Tip of the month: AllAfrica can now be searched on the ProQuest tab at the WP Library. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Question from Md.Ashrafuzzaman shanto on Wikipedia:Community portal (23:57, 31 January 2024)

Hello How Are you ❤️❤🥰🥰 --Md.Ashrafuzzaman shanto (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome LEvalyn! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)18:52, 1 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

Question from Linwoods96 (20:31, 15 February 2024)

Hello. This is daunting. I am an entertainment writer and editor. How do you suggest I get started on writing an article on a well established music producer? --Linwoods96 (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Linwoods96, and welcome to Wikipedia! Writing an article is a particularly daunting first task. My advice is to do all of your research to find the secondary sources that will support the article, before you write a word of the article itself. I also advise that you read WP:BACKWARD and (just in case) WP:SIMPLECOI. If you decide you want to proceed with the article, feel free to reply here with a list of the sources you plan to use, and I can offer advice on whether they are likely to be sufficient. (That way you can avoid wasting energy on the article if the topic isn't ready for Wikipedia yet.) Good luck and happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Here are sources I have from preliminary research on the hit making Grammy Award winning producing duo known as Klubjumpers, please let me know if I can use these: Discography https://www.discogs.com/artist/463798-Klubjumpers; https://indiepulsemusic.com/2021/08/01/billboard-chart-producers-klubjumpers/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whatcha_Say (Klubjumpers produced a song for Jason Derulo which is noted on this page)

https://soundbetter.com/profiles/52987-sam-michaels

https://newmusicweekly.com/programmer-dan-mathews-makes-guest-appearance-on-pitbulls-globalization-radio-july-5th/

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/edm-artist-noahs-keep-on-movin-becomes-both-a-billboard-and-uk-music-week-dance-chart-success-240082371.html

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Thanks. Linwoods96 (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Linwoods96, thanks for sharing these. To help you look at them with "wiki eyes", I have examined all of them in a source table. First, for context: there are two kinds of things a source can do on Wikidpedia. 1, It can WP:VERIFY that a fact is true; or, 2, it can demonstrate that the topic it's about is "notable" (which is Wikipedia's term for when something has been written about enough that there is material for an article on it). Once you have a handful of sources that accomplish task #2 (establishing notability), a wider range of sources can be OK for task #1 (verifying a specific fact). Right now, before you start writing, we're just trying to do task #2. So, here's how the sources you provide look for that:

Source assessment table: prepared by User:LEvalyn
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Discogs entry for Klubjumpers		contents are user-generated	only a database entry, not an article	✘ No
"Billboard chart producers Sam Michaels and Daniel Mathews make up the production duo known as Klubjumpers"				✔ Yes
Whatcha Say Wikipedia article		Wikipedia can never be a source for Wikipedia!	mentions their name but nothing else	✘ No
Sam Michaels SoundBetter profile	it's his own profile	? doesn't appear to have editorial oversight	? brief, but it does have some details	✘ No
"Programmer Dan Mathews Makes Guest Appearance On Pitbull’s Globalization Radio"	? no byline; looks like promo rather than independent reporting		? also brief yet with some info that could be shared	? Unknown
"EDM Artist NOAH's "Keep On Movin'" Becomes Both a Billboard and UK Music Week Dance Chart Success "	PR Newswire is always promo, never independent reporting		not even a sentence about them, just mentions their names in a list	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

At this stage, it seems possible to me that there are enough sources out there to write a wiki article, but we haven't found them yet. I'd suggest you look for a few more sources that are of the same caliber as the IndiePulse Music one: something with an independent reporter credited as the author, which focuses in detail on Klubjumpers. Be careful that you're not just finding press releases (like the PR Newswire one) that have been reprinted; press releases can sometimes be used to verify information, but never to establish notability. Good luck and happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. 2600:1700:A7C0:41F0:A9A0:89B4:2584:9594 (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Question from Abhishek Kumar Haith (17:02, 17 February 2024)

Hello, Could you please guide me to rename my article Title? --Abhishek Kumar Haith (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Abhishek Kumar Haith, welcome to Wikipedia! I'm happy to help -- I assume you're talking about Draft:Moumita Pal Mohiniyattam Artist? Renaming an article on Wikipedia is actually referred to as "moving" it, which not all users are able to do. Since your account is too new to be able to move (rename) article, I have taken a guess at what your goal was and moved the draft to take "Artist" out of the name for you. If that wasn't what you wanted to do, let me know! I'm also happy to answer any questions you might have as you're developing this article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello @LEvalyn, Thank you for guiding me on this.

Could you please remove the word "Mohiniyattam" also? So, the article title becomes "Moumita Pal" only.

Question

I'm writing this article for a growing talented artist. What kind of references I can provide so that my article get accepted in review?

Thanks in advance. Abhishek Kumar Haith (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Abhishek Kumar Haith: Ok, I moved it again. In terms of providing references, I recommend reading the advice I gave here. In your case, the notability policy you want to meet is WP:NARTIST. It looks like this specific person is a dancer, so the best sources will be things like reviews of her performances or profiles written about her in major newspapers/magazines. A review might look something like this, and a profile might look like this or this. Importantly, an interview with the artist isn't going to "count" for showing that they should have a Wiki article because we need information from other people. I suggest that you don't put time into writing until after you're certain you have good secondary sources to cite. If you want to link me your three best sources, I can give you my opinion of them. Good luck and happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red March 2024

Women in Red | March 2024, Volume 10, Issue 3, Numbers 293, 294, 299, 300, 301 Online events: New: Alphabet run Q & R | Art+Feminism | Find Her Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements Celebrate Women – All content gender gap events, in every language Wikipedia, in March 2024 Francophone Women★ Writers Fortnight 2024 Feminism and Folklore 2024 Writing Contest Tip of the month: When creating a new article, check various spellings, including birth name, married names and pseudonyms, to be sure an article doesn't already exist. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Question from Xamodeo (23:08, 3 March 2024)

Hey there! Happy to join wikipedia's community!

I'm curious, if I can start editing right away or if I should read all the documentation provided before starting to edit.

I have a couple of questions: 1. Can I edit just a part of the text even though there are more edits to be done? 2. For the articles that require editing and that Wikipedia asks me to edit, sometimes, I can't quite pin what needs to be edited, is there always stuff that need to be edited? 3. Is it a better practice to edit everything that is suggested one after the other? What's your personal take on this? 4. Will someone double check my edits

Thanks and cheers! --Xamodeo (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Xamodeo, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am happy to answer any questions you have. It sounds like you’re starting off very thoughtfully, which means I’m sure you’ll be a great editor in time. To answer your questions:

0. You can start editing before you’ve read everything— if you wanted to read EVERYTHING in Wikipedia’s guidelines, it could take weeks! You should feel free to work on anything where you think you can make an improvement, as long as you listen and learn if someone lets you know there’s something tou should do differently. See WP:BRD for more on how to approach this.

1. You can definitely edit just one part at a time! In fact, I think one of the most important parts of Wikipedia is that everyone is contributing a little bit at a time, so no one has to do everything all at once.

2. It’s actually pretty common for the tags to stick around even after the article has been fixed, especially for newcomer tasks. If you can’t see any needed edits, it would be helpful for you to remove the “improvement needed” tag so other people don’t waste their time getting sent to it. (Let me know if you want more specific info on how to do this.)

3. I think it’s best to edit whatever you feel like editing and wherever you feel confident that you can see room for improvement. (The confidence will build over time so it’s ok if you’re not confident with much at first!) This is a completely volunteer project and it works because everybody likes different parts of the process.

4. There’s no official review/approval process for edits. But, some people “watch” individual pages (getting updates on their edits) and other people “watch” ALL recent changes. When your account is very new, your edits are tagged as being by a newcomer so it’s more likely someone will take a look at them to see if you introduced a mistake. But your edits will always be live and “official” right away.

I hope that helps— let me know any time if there’s anything you’re unsure about or would like feedback on! You can also ask questions at the WP:TEAHOUSE if you want a fast response. It can take a while to feel “at home” on Wikipedia but remember that everything is about incremental progress and following your own curiosity. Happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Question about a link to verify "What Cha Say?" by Jason Derulo was a hit

Hello LEvalyn: Can I use the following link to help verify Jason Derulo's song was a 5 x platinum song and include this on my Klubjumpers producers wikipedia page? They produced the 2009 hit. https://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwmusic/article/Jason-Derulo-Announces-Take-You-Dancing-Music-Video-20200826 Linwoods96 (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Linwoods96, that source does verify that the song was a 5x platinum song -- but it doesn't verify anything about Klubjumpers. There is no mention in that article about Klubjumpers, Sam Michaels, or Dan Mathews so it can't count as coverage of them, for verification or for notability. Remember that to create an article you need to do more than just verify that facts are true -- you have to show that there are enough really in-depth sources that the topic is "notable" (aka, people have said enough stuff about them that Wikipedia can summarize that stuff.) Keep in mind that notability is not inherited so if the source you found is not about Klubthumpers, just about Derulo and Whatcha Say, it only "counts" for the articles Jason Derulo and Whatcha Say, not a possible Klubthumpers article. If articles like the one you've linked are the best sources you can kind, I think it is unlikely that you will be able to write a Wiki article on Klubthumpers. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

February 2024 WikiProject Unreferenced articles backlog drive – award

		Citation Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to LEvalyn for collecting more than 25 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's FEB24 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing 14,300 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! – – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Reminder: GA backlog drive

Hello! Just a reminder that, if you have time, you are welcome to join the GA backlog drive; it runs until the end of March. You are receiving this message because you signed up on the drive page but have not yet listed any reviews. We hope to see you there! Either way, happy editing! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Question from MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (01:54, 19 March 2024)

Hello, i am just created my account to edit some article in Wikipedia. But i don't know how to add a new section in talk or in the article and also how to list my name in every comment so some bot didn't just detect my comments unlisted. So, if you had an easy-for-beginners tutorial, it would help alot for me. --MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello MahmoudAbbasAlDilfti, and welcome to Wikipedia! I added a welcome message to your talk page which has some handy links, but I wanted to answer your specific questions too. To add a new section on an article's talk page, there will be a link in the top-right that says "add topic", which will give you a text box to write in. In the article itself, you add a section by clicking "edit" in the top-right. Once you're in the editor, you can use the drop-down on the top left to change the format of some text from "paragraph" to "heading" to give a title to the new section you're adding, and type the new information below it. Remember to link to sources for the new information you add: there will be a button with a little quote mark icon that says "cite" which you can use to add references. And, finally, to sign your name you four tildes like this: ~~~~. The tilde is usually to the left of the 1 on your keyboard, hold down shift and press the ` key to type it. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask me here any time! You can also ask at a forum called the Teahouse for a faster answer. Have fun, and happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Knives Out, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wide-angle. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A Spy on Mother Midnight

The article A Spy on Mother Midnight you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:A Spy on Mother Midnight and Talk:A Spy on Mother Midnight/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Asilvering -- Asilvering (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2024

Women in Red | April 2024, Volume 10, Issue 4, Numbers 293, 294, 302, 303, 304 Online events: New: Alphabet run S & T | Gender studies | Health Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements The second round of "One biography a week" begins in April as part of #1day1woman. Tip of the month: If you run into technical problems, you might find help on our Tools and technical support page Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 19:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your GA nomination of A Spy on Mother Midnight

The article A Spy on Mother Midnight you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:A Spy on Mother Midnight for comments about the article, and Talk:A Spy on Mother Midnight/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Asilvering -- Asilvering (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Karen B. Westerfield Tucker

You just added a red link for her on The Oxford History of Christian Worship. I've been meaning to write an article on her since a friend took a course with her a little over a year back. Thanks for the extra encouragement; I'll try to put up at least a short one before the end of the month! ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

What a great coincidence! Good luck with the article! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Question from Gregory Lee Pickard (17:42, 6 April 2024)

This is insanity. I wish to use the sandbox for practice writing an article on The Revelons. I don't wish to write an article based on my username. --Gregory Lee Pickard (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello Gregory Lee Pickard, and welcome to Wikipedia. I think you’re saying you want to use Wikipedia:Sandbox to draft an article? That sandbox is there for every editor to share— since that is many thousand of people, it’s not a feasible place to work on a long-term project. You have your own sandbox at User:Gregory Lee Pickard/sandbox, which is separate so you can work uninterrupted. When you finish writing an article, you can move/rename it— it doesn’t have to stay at your own username. If the name really bothers you, you could also work at Draft:The Revelons. By the way, you probably also want to read WP:BACKWARD and WP:YFA. Let me know if you have any questions as you work, and happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Question from Gregory Lee Pickard (14:22, 7 April 2024)

LEvalyn, I simply want to know where to title my article. My article needs a title for to proceed. There is no space for entering the title of my article. --Gregory Lee Pickard (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Question from Gregory Lee Pickard (14:26, 7 April 2024)

Thank you for your patience, but THERE IS NO BOX BELOW! "Wikipedia does not have a page with this exact title. To start a page called Draft:The Revelons, type in the box below." Where is the box below? --Gregory Lee Pickard (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

When I look at Draft:The Revelons, it looks like you’ve figured out how to create the page and get started, so I think this question is sorted? I wanted to offer some more explanation about the title problem— the way Wikipedia thinks of article names is that the title of the article is also its location on the site, so it’s not possible for something to have the name The Revelons unless it is fully published on the site. So, articles get written with a different title on them (a draft or a sandbox), and then when they are ready they get “moved” to the main site, which renames them. Let me know if I can help with anything else, and happy editing. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

LEvalyn,

Many issues are arising: Firstly, I will admit to a conflict of interest in creating an article for the Revelons. (I am the creator, lead singer and songwriter for this band. I was hoping to use the sandbox to act as a preliminary research guide to gather information: citations, links, reviews, photographs, etc. on the Revelons to support a third-party's actual submission (article) on Wikipedia. It appears that this is NOT a feasible method.

Secondly, If it is not possible for something to have the name The Revelons, unless it is fully published -Then exactly what different title should I use as a draft for the sandbox? And then sometime in the future when they are ready to get "moved" to the main site -who or what renames them???

Please excuse, but having a Wikipedia page is becoming less necessary than I could possibly imagine. I have much more important things to accomplish in my life. As a visual artist AND musical artist, I continue to create, write & record new works. If you would kindly Google me, you would realize all of my accomplishments worthy of a simple Wikipedia page. Thank you for your expertise. Maybe when I'm dead, someone will find the time and inspiration to create an article on my life. Gregory Lee Pickard (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Gregory Lee Pickard, you are under no obligation to make a Wikipedia article, so feel free to stop. If you decide to continue, the current location at Draft:The Revelons is the right place to do so. When you click “submit this draft for review”, someone will review it and they will move/rename the article for you if they decide it’s ready to be published. Since you have a conflict of interest, you do need to go through that review process. As for doing the preliminary work for a third party to finish: in theory you can use the current draft as a place to get an article started (e.g., by accumulating links to sources) and any other editor can join in and finish the article; in practice, it is very unlikely that anyone will do so. This is a completely volunteer project— I am an unpaid volunteer, the people reviewing drafts are unpaid volunteers, the writers of other articles are unpaid volunteers, etc etc etc— so people work on what they feel like. You are also a volunteer, so if you prefer to spend your time making music you should do so. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Minor Barnstar
		Thank you for participating in the March 2024 backlog drive. Your contribution (4.5 points total) helped reduce the backlog by more than 250 articles! Here's a token of our appreciation. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Question from Raturous (20:30, 16 April 2024)

Hey! I hope you're well, I think I'm in a bit of a Tiffy with an article regarding Shakshouka, I didn't know what edit warning initially and I did stop after getting a message regarding it but after I provided a source and then making a new edit another person sent me a warning. So I am now confused. --Raturous (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello Raturous, and welcome to wikipedia! I'm sorry to hear you've gotten yourself into a conflict so early on, but I'm glad you've reached out to me and asked for a third opinion. I want to give you my POV on how your edits have fit within "wiki culture" in the hopes of clarifying where the warning came from and what you might want to do next.

First off, any kind of change to an article is "an edit" when it comes to WP:Edit wars, especially reverts. So even if you're adding in a new source, if it's in the context of a content dispute, putting it in the article directly is "warring". Because your edit was challenged, what you need to do is talk with other editors on the talk page and only edit the article after you agree with each other.

In this case, it looks like you tried that but the other editor got frustrated because of the specific way that Wikipedia defines WP:Reliable sources. For example, a Wikipedia article is never a "reliable source" for wikipedia content, because it is user-generated. For the same reason, blogs and self-published are not reliable sources either, so none of the links you have provided will work. In contrast, the source M.Bitton added was a published cookbook. A published history book or history article would be even better, but since the cookbook was published it is considered reliable enough to use.

In terms of what to do next from here: honestly, the third opinion will likely conclude that your sources are insufficient, but there's no deadline on wikipedia. Rather than being in a hurry to win this one argument about shakshouka, I think you will enjoy yourself more and improve the encyclopedia more by finding a non-fiction book on a topic that interests you and reading it with Wikipedia on-hand to add in any interesting details that you find there. By starting with a really top-notch source (rather than having an idea and then going hunting for a source to support it) you'll be able to make edits that "stick". For example, maybe you could read Apricots on the Nile: A Memoir with Recipes or Nile Style: Egyptian Cuisine and Culture. Your local library might also be able to point you toward good books about Egyptian food history -- or any other topic that interests you!

Let me know if you have other questions or if there's anything else I can help with. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your response. This clarification really helps. I will be honest, it's more frustrating in my party as the history section does mention that the origins are disputed and Egypt being one of the contenders, and as being north African myself and visiting Egypt multiple times, a classic Egyptian breakfast almost always includes shakshouka. So with those two pieces of information in mind, I do find it annoying that's it's being argued. I was wondering would a Arabic article count as a reliable source? Thank you again. Raturous (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I definitely sympathize with the frustration of knowing something but not being able to prove it to wiki standards. If you want to keep working on the shakshuka article, it's fine for sources to be in Arabic, though they'll still have to meet the criteria of what wikipedia defines as a "WP:Reliable source". I can read a little Arabic, so if you have something specific in mind I'm happy to offer my opinion on it. (Since printed books are the best sources, if you have one, maybe you can type up the key paragraph?)

As for how the article currently talks about its disputed origins, the two cited sources in the "History" section actually made no mention of Egypt (or Algeria) as possible origins for the dish, so I had to remove that info there too. I'd also point out that the popularity of a dish today doesn't really mean anything about its origins. For example, croissant is still described as a "French pastry" even though it is widely eaten outside of France. So, rather than trying to redefine the origin of the dish, maybe there is something about Egyptian shakshuka that is worth mentioning in the "Variations" section? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I wanted to add, thanks for taking all of this in stride! It can be really tough to get acclimatized to "wikipedia world" but I am really glad you're putting in the effort to learn from the feedback you're getting. Wikipedia depends on lots of editors with lots of viewpoints and expertise, so it always makes the encyclopedia better when new people join in. Eventually I hope it will be fun instead of frustrating! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I did find a source from the guardian claiming debated Egyptian origins. Here. Raturous (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Good find! This can definitely be used as a reliable source. Since you’ve gone 24hrs without undoing anyone’s changes at the shakshuka article, you are safe from the three-revert rule about edit warring. You can add Egypt back to the list of possible origins, citing this article. I wouldn’t touch the lead just yet, though: that source actually suggests that it’s most commonly thought of as an Israeli dish, which would make “Maghrebi” the wrong descriptor but “North African” no better. This really isn’t my area of expertise (I mostly write about very old books) but I wonder if it’s ambiguous enough that the first sentence shouldn’t mention a country at all. You could try proposing that at the article’s talk page. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. It was brought to Israel by Tunisian Jews around the 50s-60s. While it is a possibility that the dish was made by Jewish North Africans, it is at the end of the day made somewhere in that region not in modern-day Israel. Raturous (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

i really appreciate your help all together! Raturous (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Also I am a mix of North African, and culturally speaking, I've heard people share their preferences, saying they prefer the maghrebi version or to specify they prefer a certain country's version. so it is correct. There are different versions. Further context, I am part Tunisian Egyptian and Algerian. I'll try to find the Algerian origin debate another time but for now I wouldn't say that either terms are wrong, but I think "North African" is a better all encompassing term Raturous (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Raturous, it looks like the third opinion has been provided, and you've made two more edits on the article. I wanted to let you know about some slight problems with both, so you can continue to learn the ropes.

1. In this edit, you're putting Egypt back in the history list based on the Guardian article, like I suggested you should -- but the source you're using is only in the edit summary, not in the article itself. That lets another wikipedia editor see where you got it from, but it doesn't help the readers. I can fix this, but why don't you practice using the wiki citation features yourself? There are some instructions here. Try following those to add the Guardian article as a citation for the sentence on "The origin of the dish...".

2. In this edit, you changed the lead again to match your point of view that you have been edit warring with M.Bitton about. Even though it had been more than 24 hours (so it didn't violate the three-revert rule), you really shouldn't have made that edit yet, since it was clear M.Bitton still disagreed with you, and you hadn't heard back from your official Third Opinion person yet. (I don't really count since I'm just involved in this as your wiki mentor.) Because this edit came before any consensus had been reached on the talk page of the article, it still counts as edit warring (not violating the three-revert rule just means it's not such bad edit warring that you can be banned right away), and I think you really frustrated M.Bitton again. I know you're getting frustrated too, but wikipedia is a slow-and-steady project; when you start something like the Third Opinion process, you're supposed to just wait for a bit. If you wanted to mend fences a little, you could consider writing a small apology for making mistakes while you are learning.

Anyway, since the third opinion agreed that the Guardian source is OK, I think the use of North African in the opening sentence is OK too. It looks like M.Bitton is going to go looking for some new sources, which I agree is a good idea -- news articles and recipes reliable enough to cite, but they're not really the best places to find this kind of information because journalists and chefs aren't historians so they have less expertise on historical matters. If you disagree with any future changes M.Bitton might make, a good rule of thumb is to undo their change only one time and to talk on the talk page about it without making any further article changes until people on the talk page have said they agree.

Let me know if you have any trouble adding the citation as I suggest in point #1 above, or if you have any other questions about Wikipedia. Happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi L, sorry for jumping the gun with that one. I thought that now I had 2 new sources supporting my claim , whereas Bitton had none, that it wouldn't matter what he thought as we are trying to stay factual. I will make an apology to everyone involved but not to just Bitton as I feel like he wasn't staying objective, especially when he said "it never should" when referencing to the origins of the dish being potentially from Egypt. I am currently attempting to add the citations, should I also add the NY times? Raturous (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the NY Times is high-quality enough to really be worth adding. It's a recipe where a chef just passingly mentions the very broad origins of the dish, not someone actually talking about the historical problem of identifying its origin. I'd stick to just adding the Guardian source to the history section for now.

It also looks like another editor has gotten involved in editing the lead. Since it seemed like people were getting stuck on just one word in the lead, and overlooking the fact that the lead is supposed to be a citation-free summary of the article itself, I decided to try making some overall improvements to the article. I still left the citation edit for you to do as practice, though: you should use the citation feature to add the citation to that Guardian article, and delete the "citation needed" tag that I put on the word Egypt. Again, let me know if that gives you any trouble. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hm, my edit was not as productive as I had hoped. I still think you should try adding the Guardian citation for Egypt, but I'd suggest you stay out of the article and its talk page for a little while. Except, if you find new sources that you think are high-quality, share those links on the talk page. I'll see if I can reach a better consensus with folks. It is a strangely contentious page! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

im so sorry I just saw that Raturous (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I just added a single comment to the talk page but that's it. Ill stay out of it now Raturous (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

No need to apologise, it's OK! Commenting more on the talk page isn't breaking any rules (i.e., you're not falling afoul of edit-warring or anything) and you can keep engaging if you want to -- I just thought the conversation was getting a little too contentious for a newbie to have a good time. Maybe a better way for me to express my suggestion as advice instead of a command is this: when a debate is getting bogged down in edit warring, it's unproductive to repeat things that have already been said. So, if you have a new source everyone should consider, that would be worth adding because it's definitely new, but I personally judged that your general idea ("It's North African") was already sufficiently "on the record" that disagreeing again isn't adding something new. (That's also why I tried a bigger edit to the article -- I hoped it would be new enough to push us toward a different approach to the topic.) Also, you shouldn't have to feel personally responsible for single-handedly fixing things, so it's OK to go do something else for a while. I hope that explanation helps. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

it really does. Thank you so much! :)) Raturous (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Its very hard to find any research papers or more historical articles regarding this topic. I moved from online cookbooks to published cookbooks thinking that it may have more substance. Raturous (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it is very hard to find high-quality sources about foods. I think the printed cookbook you found would be a great source for some topics, like the way cheese was produced in ancient Egypt, since it talks about that at some length and it's clear the author did some research there. However, in this case I think it's not a thrilling source about shakshuka since it just mentions it offhand in the middle of a sentence, and it's not the main focus of what the writer is talking about. The section with shakshuka is a little ambiguous in part because it's so brief. I think something like The Oxford Companion to Food might be the kind of source that would really improve the article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha, I do see your point :) Raturous (talk) 00:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, it's not usually this contentious to try to hash out a consensus with someone! Sorry you're having a rough first introduction to Wikipedia. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

No worries! It shouldn't be this hard lol Raturous (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Also I was gonna bring up the first point you mentioned and I think as you said before I should probably stay out of this one so I'm gonna relay to you what I think is relevant I am assuming you were referring to the encyclopedia of Jewish cuisine as the cookbook. The "historian" who wrote it studied Jewish history

"Marks was born in 1952 in Charleston, West Virginia.[3] After graduating from high school at Talmudical Academy of Baltimore, Marks studied at Yeshiva University, and graduated with an M.A. in Jewish history, M.S.W. in social work and rabbinical ordination from Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, a Yeshiva University affiliate.[4]"

So although he has a prominent education, in regards to his education including the history of North African cuisine wouldn't be likely. Also the second article Bitton included described it as North African although they specified the countries in bracket and does not include all the disputed places of origin that's included in this Wikipedia article. Raturous (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for this context, I'll keep it in mind. I think I've finally found something detailed by a historian here, which luckily my library gives me access to. It examines a bunch of historical cookbooks and cites some more historians, which means I've got my entry to the research rabbit hole... ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Oooo, great find! I tried to access it through my institution but we don't have access unfortunately :') Raturous (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

hey I found this newspaper from 1896 that describes shakshouka as Egyptian, does the work as a source?

Here Raturous (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Question from 444sprite (12:53, 19 April 2024)

Hi! I would love to get started into editing, I'm honestly just a bit overwhelmed right now, if I start to read one guide, there are ten others which I should read before and I don't know how to get started really.

I hope you can help me find a way to get started. I'm looking forward to contribute to Wikipedia! :) --444sprite (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello 444sprite, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you reached out. It can definitely be overwhelming at first, but you don't have to master everything all at once before you get started contributing. My advice is to pick one small area that interests you, make some cautious edits that you think improves the encyclopedia, and see what feedback you get from the community. (Unfortunately, if you do everything right this usually means you'll get no feedback but I am always happy to take a look at your edits and applaud/advise if you ask me to.)

More specifically, one way to find your "starter niche" is to pick a "cleanup tag" that other Wikipedians have placed on articles, and go around fixing that one kind of problem. This can be a good way to start because you can gradually become an expert on how to make that one kind of fix, while also seeing a variety of what is on Wikipedia.

• If you like writing, you could look at articles where the introduction needs improvement-- from that page click on any of the months to see a list like this one of articles with problems. Browse the articles and look for the ones where it says at the top that "This article's lead section may be too short to adequately summarize the key points", like at Henry Jacobs (priest). All you need to do is read the article, and then write the lead so it repeats the main points of the article, and then you can delete the cleanup tag.
• If you like research, you could take a look at the suggestions over at this WikiProject, where they have similar links to articles with zero sources. You'd need to go looking to see if you can find any sources anywhere that talk about the article's subject, and add it as a citation to any of the article material that it can verify. They have more instructions here too. The downside here is that you'll be seeing a lot of articles that maybe don't belong on Wikipedia, but there's no harm in trying to improve them and you can post a question here (or ask me) if you find an article that you think really can't be improved.
• If you're interested in a specific topic, you can find a really good source about that topic (e.g., the book that everybody knows is the best one, or a great magazine article), and go read Wikipedia articles about that topic to see if they have any mistakes or omissions that your source can fix. This can be a little more complicated as a starting point but can also be more satisfying because you're not working on random topics. If you have an interest in mind I'd be happy to help find fun projects in that area.

I know that's kind of a long list of options but I hope it helps a little with narrowing things down! Again, as long as you approach your edits with the goal of making an article better, and you listen & ask for advice if someone undoes your edit or says you made a mistake, you'll gradually learn the most important parts. I hope you find something you really enjoy, and I am here to help any time -- happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)