Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia. It looks like you're doing a lot of constructive editing and maintenance tasks! I must say it's unusual to see a first-time editor whose first day's worth of edits include placing a maintenance tag, opening a deletion discussion and adding templates to infoboxes. Did you previously edit here under another account? Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the welcome! This is my first time editing Wikipedia, so I'm very open to critiques/corrections/etc. I have just been following the 'newcomer-suggested easy edit' train the last day or so (perhaps somewhat enthusiastically?). InsomniaOpossum (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No critiques; deletion is a little bit of an unusual place to find a first-timer, that's all, so I wanted to ask. Best of luck. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Cinder painter was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

not meeting Wikipedia:Notability (academics)

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Omaida Velazquez and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Cinder painter (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, InsomniaOpossum! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Cinder painter (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RangersRus was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to

• meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria
• or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth
  

Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Omaida Velazquez and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

RangersRus (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in continuing to edit, I suggest you make an account to gain a bunch of privileges. Happy editing!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, InsomniaOpossum! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The Teahouse

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! User:Sushidude21! (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC) Sushidude21! (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome! InsomniaOpossum (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To get better sources for Draft:Omaida Velazquez, I'd recommend Newspapers.com, google scholar, the Wikipedia library and pro question. Of course googling is also very useful and perhaps most useful of all. Sushidude21! (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I looked through all of those except for newspapers.com (don't have a subscription) but I think I scrounged up a fair amount of newspaper sources w/ varying degrees of sigcov ([1], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]) from google/google news.

I was actually considering asking for the draft to be deleted bc I mostly created it under the mistaken(?) belief that National Academy of Medicine membership qualified as C3 per WP:NACADEMIC. I don't want to put more work into writing if the subject is inherently non-notable. Just wasn't sure if asking for it to be deleted early created more work for the AfC admins versus just letting it lay around for 6 months before deletion 😅 if you know which one is better from an etiquette standpoint I'd appreciate any suggestion(s)! If not no problem, thanks for noticing and the advice~ InsomniaOpossum (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Listing her publications could help (https://med.miami.edu/faculty/omaida-c-velazquez-md-facs and https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=pHVZ1b0AAAAJ&hl=en), as I did on Leon O. Morgan.

This website also provides a pretty good bio: https://www.vascularcures.org/omaida-velazquez Sushidude21! (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey InsomniaOpossum! I saw your edits related to the Department of Government Efficiency and I wanted to see if you had any interest in seeing/working with the documents released by DOGE? Wikisource, one of the other projects from the Wikimedia Foundation, and a sister project to Wikipedia, has a newly-created WikiProject DOGE, which has the goal to transcribe all of the documents released by DOGE, so they are easily readable to others and searchable on Google and other search engines.

Wikisource is not Wikipedia, in terms of there is no articles to create. Wikisource is just a place where public-domain/free-to-use texts are transcribed onto. Those can be subsequently linked to a Wikipedia article.

Well, if you are interested, feel free to let join the WikiProject over on Wikisource or if you have any questions, feel free to ask! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blanche Brillon Macdonald, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North Vancouver. 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) 07:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]