User talk:LEvalyn

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)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Roger Pilon! There can be a lot to learn to get going, but we always appreciate people willing to improve the accuracy of our articles. You should probably read our guidelines on writing with a "conflict of interest" and our guidelines on fixing errors in your biography first -- wikipedia gets a lot of self-promotion and bad-faith editing, so our policies place restrictions on people with a "connection" to an article topic. Most of what you're allowed to do is delete rather than add, e.g., removing obvious vandalism (like slurs), unambiguous errors of basic fact (like where you were born), or information that doesn't cite a source. There's also some more general advice about navigating Wikipedia as a person with an article about you.

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)

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)

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)

Lawrence, On Dec. 23, after I had responded to your email request of earlier that day by emailing you back, with my proposed bio attached, I emailed you again on Jan. 6, then again this morning at 09:31 EST, requesting a response as to how we move forward from here. Since I haven't heard back from you since Dec. 23 (perhaps you don't monitor your email regularly), I'm writing you here. I'd like to get going on this project and, accordingly, would like to work with you on it. Thank you, Roger Pilon Roger Pilon (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @LEvalyn,

Seems you are away for holidays. Safe holidays too. I was hoping to co-nominate Half of a Yellow Sun and The Thing Around Your Neck this month. What's your opinion? The only problem is to sort the reviews of the articles in order. Then we go! SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@LEvalyn? SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:02, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, LEvalyn. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Book history, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

-- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Yea i got banned and I don't know why. --Bshuler1 (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Bshuler1, and welcome to Wikipedia! As far as I can see, you have not been banned -- can you tell me more about where you're encountering problems, and maybe I can help? ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi I posted a new article about artist Douglas Vibez . Please can you review and accept it to be published? --Taiwoxoft123 (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Taiwoxoft123, and welcome to Wikipedia! It looks like the article has already been reviewed. To be accepted, a draft would have to contain evidence that Douglas Vibes meet our criteria to have an article, but it looks like he is much to early in his music career to do so. I advise waiting several years. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red | February 2026, Vol 12, Issue 2, Nos 358, 359, 361, 362, 363 Online events: New: Alphabet run: countries starting with B | Black Women | Works by women: theatre, opera, music Continuing: #1day1woman ( year-long initiative) | Sports (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Join Wikipedia:26 for '26 and create or substantially improve twenty-six Wikipedia articles during the year 2026, at least one for each letter of the English alphabet. Tip of the month: Our redlists are a great resource, but not every redlinked subject is notable. Be sure to research before starting a new article. 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

--Lajmmoore (talk 22:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi. I am excited to have to link with you. I would like your help on the website. What is the work of the editors on Wikipedia? I am a writer and can assist in lifting some pages but it seems easy yet I need to know the editors role in giving permissions to change the content. --KMKariuki (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Good article nominations | February 2026 Backlog Drive
February 2026 Backlog Drive: On 1 February, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted a good article review in the past year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

-- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Welcome to Phase 2 of the January–February 2026 NPP drive. During Phase 1, we reviewed 16,658 articles and 4,416 redirects, and there is currently a backlog of 16,475 articles and 23,782 redirects in the queue. Fantastic job! Completing 22,502 patrols in the first phase made a significant dent in the backlog. Let's keep our foot on the gas for Phase 2, and I hope we can achieve even more reviews than Phase 1. Best of luck!

You are receiving this message because you added your name to the participants list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Can you give me some tips on citing sources after editing? --What-A-Knightmare (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

How do you disable edit suggestions? --Bricksticks124 (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for introducing yourself. I'm sure I'll have some questions.... --Rocky --Rocky Coste (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

im trying to make a wikipedia of my great uncle Ronald Edward Smith aka New York Ron a well known Hobo i hae alot of pictures articles and letters and such and a updated story and his death date he deserves a page --Scouto312 (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Looking higher up on this talk page, it seems many mentee questions aren't being answered.. If you still want to be a mentor, please attempt to respond to questions more actively, otherwise you can resign or mark yourself as away via Special:MentorDashboard. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Lawrence, for endnote 25, how do I get rid of the material after the Retrieved date? So too for note 24, and notes 1 and 2. Roger --Roger Pilon (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

How do I remove an endnote? --Roger Pilon (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red | March 2026, Vol 12, Issue 3, Nos 358, 359, 364, 365, 366 Online events: March 1-31: Artists & Activists | Artworks by women | Alphabet run: countries starting with C Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: Celebrate Women Unreferenced articles backlog drive Wiki Loves Ramadan Tip of the month: Those experiencing difficulties with new articles can follow the guidance in our essays, perhaps starting with our Ten Simple Rules. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

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

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

• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1,467 round points, largely gained from 1 featured article, 5 featured lists, 15 good articles, and 42 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Olliefant (submissions) with 1,246 round points, largely from 4 featured lists, 9 good articles, 2 featured topic articles, 4 did you know articles, and 75 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,095 round points, largely from 3 featured articles, 6 good articles, and 5 did you know articles;
• MCE89 (submissions) with 848 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 32 FAC and GAN reviews; and
• Rollinginhisgrave (submissions) with 838 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 14 FAC, GAN, and peer reviews.

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

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

hello how to for people --Basil Wiratunga (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi thank you! I got a little carried away making my first edits during an edit-a-thon and copied text directly from a source. In the process, I undid another users previous edits. I'm so embarrassed! I want to fix it and revert to the article before I started editing it. I read a little about reverting and saw a cautionary note that I could be blocked for making major revisions. I wonder if that's true if I'm removing my own edits. What would you advise? --OhThoseBlues (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Undoing your own edit is definitely fine! And, in general, we always give a warning before blocking people, so you’d have a chance to learn more specifically why the edit was disruptive and not repeat it in future. WP:BEBOLD has more info— as long as you’re responding to feedback you’ll be fine. Welcome to Wikipedia! ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)