User talk:Bilorv/Archive 1

This archive is updated manually by .

Archive created 17:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Evans Quinn
Hi Bilorv. Thanks for reviewing my Evans Quinn article. You've placed a POV tag on the page but not noted on the talk page what the dispute is. Could you please elaborate (here, there, my talk page, wherever!) and I'll try and address the problem. Regards da nn o _ u k  21:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I've not got a clue. I remember looking at the page but certainly don't remember making any changes - much less placing a POV tag on a perfectly neutral article. I was using Special:NewPagesFeed for the first time so it's possible I was testing/looking at something and misclicked or meant to click "cancel" but didn't. I've removed the tag. Sorry for any confusion. Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No worries, I'm sure many are the times that I've been patrolling Recent Changes, hit the wrong button on Twinkle and warned people about all sorts of infractions that they're clearly not guilty of! Thanks for the prompt response, much appreciated. da nn o _ u k  22:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Overlinking
Your plot synopses are generally good, but you're linking too many words unnecessarily. For example, common English words don't need to linked. Cat, dog, boat, food: we all know what these words mean. Existentialism, iconoclasm, dichotomy, superconductor: these are rather rare or complex words that might need to be linked. It's not a big deal, but a large number of linked words can distract readers and leave them confused as to what the key concepts are. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, right. These are some links from the plot synopsis I wrote for "The Hawking Excitation".

Email, Engineer, Higgs boson particle, Halloween, Card tricks, Belt buckles, Uniform fetishism (linked from "French maid costume"), Shopping


 * The words "email" and "engineer" might be a bit too much, but you also removed links from "card tricks", "belt buckles", "uniform fetishism". You also left some links there, like "Halloween" and "shopping". I have briefly looked at WP:OVERLINK before, but my problem is where to draw the line. I would have thought that if "belt buckles" was removed, "shopping" and "Halloween" would have been too. Does "Higgs boson particle" deserve a link any more than "card tricks" does, especially if neither is essential to understanding the plot? I agree that I put too many links in there, but am not quite sure why some specific examples should/shouldn't be included. Bilorv (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Card tricks and belt buckles are too common. I left shopping?  That was an error on my part, then.  Thanks for spotting that.  Halloween could be useful for non-American readers, who might not understand the American holiday.  I'm pretty sure that card tricks exist in the whole world, however.  Complex physics concepts certainly should be linked, and, if understanding is necessary, they should also be briefly explained.  Here, it's not terribly important what it is, because it's a stand-in for "complicated scientific theory", and it could have been any complex-sounding theory.  Descriptions of such MacGuffins would be undue.  I agree that it's confusing at first, and it's very tempting to link indiscriminately.  You can get a lot of practice and help from Tony1's tutorials on his user page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Heroes of Olympus
Sorry, I was on my phone so it is incredibly hard to mention things. I removed it due to a lack of sources which you added in when you reinserted the section, so thanks and sorry for not putting an explanation on the page itself-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 07:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for clearing that up. Bilorv (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for The Convention Conundrum
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

List of The Big Bang Theory characters
Thanks for your edit at List of The Big Bang Theory characters. I fear we have a fan trying to insert herself into the article. She left a link to a facebook page at Talk:The Big Bang Theory a few days ago, and the reply that she left on her talk page was rather ... illuminating. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The Game...
...is still watching you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.120.205 (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The Irish Mother
Her surname is "McConnell" an Irish surname, so therefore the character is of Irish descent. many fictional characters with Irish names are placed in the category:Fictional American people of Irish descent, sometimes just based on the names, it doesn't have to be referenced on the show, but the Aldrin character is in the category:Fictional American people of Swedish descent so go tell the person who put them in the category off, instead of me, I'm only helping people understand the portrayals of fictional Irish Americans in television. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.12.58 (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It sounds like original research to me. I would think that it should have to be referenced on the show; do you have any policies or links which say you can judge their descent by their name alone? BTW, there's no need to get defensive - I merely didn't understand your reasoning. Also, you made the edit, so if I was trying to "tell [anyone] off", it would be you, rather than "the person who put them in the category" you seem to be trying to shift blame to. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 15:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD
Hi, Do you think we have a Talk page consensus on MOS:LEAD to add in new wording to the policy page? I've never made a change to a policy page, and I don't want to face administrative sanctions for making the change. Thanks!OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi, Adam. I want to thank you for all of the hard work you put into reviewing Caldas da Rainha. Your suggestions were extremely helpful in improving the article. I am grateful for your contributions. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!!!
Cheers! &#34;We could read for-EVER&#59; reading round the wiki!&#34; (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Organic acid
"The lead of an article should be as concise as possible and only contain information repeated in more detail later in the article"
 * agree, but why didn't you fix the original article?209.86.76.253 (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I probably should have fixed the article myself. I was using an automated program and didn't think to move the information to its own subsection. — Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 16:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Congrats on being a nerd

Matt-cant-fail (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC) 

Poetry
I am sorry if my poetry has offended you, it was meant as a compliment. I hope this not cause any tension between us. Have a good day and please keep reviewing articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt-cant-fail (talk • contribs) 17:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Interwiki links
Turns out that as well as interlanguage links, Wikipedia has in fact a sizeable list (with additional details) of interwiki links as well, including Uncyclopedia and external non-wiki sites such as Google's definition service and even Urban Dictionary as interwiki links ('interwiki links' includes external sites, not just wikis). Not sure as to how much help the last one will ever be on Wikipedia, but still...

On another note, did you know that gnomes are the physics illuminality? – Jordan Hooper (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

QI article
Hi I saw your post about the QI article needing improvement, I certainly agree much improvement is needed. Some of the sections such as Buzzers would be hard to reference unless we referenced it to the show itself of course I would not recommend this as its not easy to check this form of referencing. I will try to do more tomorrow in addition if you have any feedback for me feel free to message me as I am a bit rusty at Wikipedia. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!


Lixxx235 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 22:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you too
Just want to thank you in return for your note about "Slap Bet". As I can sometimes find hesitation even for small edits and as I didn't got to talk to too many other editors, such note is truly a motivation lifter. אומנות (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for The Game (mind game)
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Congratul8tions on the gr8 banter m8, I can rel8


Zumoarirodoka has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Gr8 wikibanter m8 no h8 i r8 8/8.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

merci beaucoup, mon petit chou
Thank you Bilorv, for your reply on my userpage. I will keep your message in mind when editing Wikipedia, and I enjoyed your ironic Wikilinking much more than I should have. However, I would just like to clarify the following:
 * 1) I would have formatted the quote boxes on the right, but unfortunately that would require Ann Widdecombe to be on the left for once; an irony that not even I could stand for. And I know you're disappointed in me – I'm disappointed in myself for that faux pas, I must admit;
 * 2) I promise to you that, I shall never mention Katie Price again;
 * 3) I had always thought you were an unofficial member of the Really Reformed Church of Wikipedia, but I guess I'm wrong. I am also a 6 (or thereabouts) on the Dawkins scale, so there. Stick that in your nonexistent pipe (see: Ceci n'est pas une pipe), and smoke it;
 * 4) I shall refrain from creating misleading or patronising Wikilinks and comply with all the rules that you have notified me of;
 * 5) I shall always use my  correctly;
 * 6) I reject that notion of "dated expressions". All of my expressions are contemporary, as to be expected from the youth of today;
 * 7) I shall not put any more of your quotes in green, without asking for your consent first, or that of the Green Party of England and Wales.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zumoarirodoka (talk • contribs) 19:33, 26 May 2015

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:The Hawking Excitation.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:The Hawking Excitation.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have also nominated File:The Werewolf Transformation.jpg for similar reasons. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand the whole "picture paints a thousand words" idea, but that seems to apply to just about any non-free image. If publicity photographs or posters had specifically been released for the episode, this would be a slightly different issue; alternatively, if something in the episode would be particularly valuable to show (a particular art style, or some highly controversial imagery, or something) then a screenshot might be a good addition, but, even if that was the case, the infobox may not be the best place for them. I do think it's a mistake to believe that we can "automatically" use screenshots of episodes in the same way we can "automatically" use album covers, or logos, or film posters. A recent discussion which reaffirmed that consensus can be found here. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this counts as a "press release" or "publicity photo" or whatever, but the image File:The Hawking Excitation.jpg was released shortly before the episode in an article by The Hollywood Reporter, so it's not just an arbitrary screenshot from a random scene in the episode. Hawking's appearance is commented on far more in the Production and Reviews sections of The Hawking Excitation than any other scene, so I would argue that the phrase "for identification and critical commentary on the ... program and its contents" in the license template does describe how the image is used. I could easily move the image out of the infobox if you think it would be more relevant in the Plot/Production/Reviews section of the article. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 11:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed- it's no random screenshot, but I don't know if this is a publicity photo (or, and this would definitely be a no-no as per NFCC#2, a photo belonging to the Reporter). On a more general note, you're still talking about how important the fact that Hawking appeared in the episode is, rather than how that screenshot looks. The image is basically exactly what you'd expect- it's Parsons as Cooper next to Hawkings. Hardly the kind of thing that readers would not be able to comprehend without the image! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Ninja Warrior Uk
Please do not delete whole sections of articles, we don't consider that good etiquette. Pablothepenguin (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not? The content removed were excessive lists of trivial information. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Another user (User:Drmies) clearly agreed with me and I've never heard before any notion that you have to notify the talk page before boldly removing content. I don't want to be rude or descend to ad hominem attacks, but I think Drmies and I are more qualified than you to talk about how etiquette works on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I've started a section on the talk page—please respond there rather than reverting me again. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 20:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Pablo, there's no "we" in there. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

AfD
Hi Bilorv. At Wikipedia discussions, it's not a question  of teams, or winning  or losing - Wiipedia is not  a ball park and editing  is not a game. On meta discussions such as AfD it's a question of knowing  your policies and guidelines, interpreting them as accurately  as possible and then making  comments backed up  by  them. Most of us admins are very good at upholding  Wikipedia policies -  a few, just  a few, may  be wonky  or vague, but  we do  our best  even if we don't  really  like them. Like a traffic cop who  doesn't  really  see any  sense in  the blanket  50 mph speed limit  on  long  straight  oopen  roads but  has to  hand out  tickets for speeding ;) Happy  editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I probably shouldn't have written that — it was intended as a sort of joke. It just felt a bit like I was going along with what I'd been told to do / just copying everyone else's behaviour without any thought of my own. That was the gist of what I was trying to say/imply: I did think through things for myself and did end up agreeing with everyone else, and my change in vote wasn't an attempt to switch over to the outcome that looked like it was going to happen. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 10:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Adminship
Just wanted to thank you for the kind words of support at my RfA...they are much appreciated. I hope I may prove to be worthy of your trust. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Dare I say ... coincidence?
You joined Wikipedia Friday, 13 December 2013 - exactly the day I did! Interesting. :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 00:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is interesting. I think it also shows how lazy I've been — look at your contributions and then look at mine. They were made in the same period of time. :P — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 08:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks Bilorv...I am just getting old I guess as once you explain it the whole process seems very simple.King.parker3 (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Your help desk question
I have attempted a response.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

thank you
Hi, thank you for your help at the teahouse with the language templates. I've changed the Tiginrya one as you suggested and it seems to have come out fine. Thanks!184.147.138.101 (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

GA topic names
What's going on with all these changes to the GA topic names? And why do the old names no longer work? (the template used to automatically find them.) The change at Foster's reactance theorem is what brought this to my attention. It is nonsensical to list the topic of that article as Computing. It is a mathematical theorem of an electrical engineering problem. It has nothing whatever to do with computing. SpinningSpark 00:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just going through Category:Good articles without topic parameter and trying to add topics. About a third the problems were caused by people using  instead of , and several more were caused by invalid parameter names (e.g. "Culture, sociology and psychology" instead of "Culture, society and psychology"). One of the common problems was that "Computing and engineering" didn't work as a topic parameter — see this, which just says  good article  instead of  Engineering and technology good article  — but removing the "and engineering" bit seemed to fix the problem. I didn't attempt to assess the article myself: it's listed under Good articles/Engineering and technology (under "Engineering technology"), so I just assumed that's where it belongs. I didn't actually change the topic name; I just made it visible. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 10:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is that it should work. It's listed at WP:GA/SM as one of the official GA topics. The documentation of Template:GA points to that page for users to choose the topic name in the template.  The screw up in the template should be fixed rather than mass altering articles to make them correspond to what is actually a fault in the template.  In any case, please stop changing these articles to topic computing.  That is completely wrong.  Stop now or I will mass revert you.  I am seeing lots of incorrectly categorised articles pop up in my watchlist now so you must be doing large numbers.  It would not have been so bad if you had changed to the parent topic ("Engineering and technology") but even that is losing the information of where the article has really been placed.  Get the fault fixed in the template and then undo all those edits. SpinningSpark 13:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I still don't see why "Computing and engineering" cannot be abbreviated to "Computing"; I've not fundamentally changed the topic or altered the place the article is categorised under. "Computing and engineering" is not listed at Category:Good articles without topic parameter, which is the list I was basing my edits on (although I also used some other parameters that seemed to work, like "Songs"). Yes, I have made mass changes, but only a few of them were specifically "Computing and engineering" —> "Computing". I was just trying to clear the backlog at Category:Good articles without topic parameter. If you think I've made more mistakes, can you please be more specific than "incorrectly categorised"? For instance, is there anything wrong with this edit (justified by "Do not use the parameter, as it is deprecated." at GA), this one (similar to the "Computing" thing but with different topic names) or this or this? I didn't see any specific issues with GA, only with the transclusions of it on various talk pages. I've finished making changes; mass revert me if you want (or tell me which edits you want me to undo and I'll clean up after myself), but I was only trying to help and I don't see how any of my edits were unconstructive or had a negative impact. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 13:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Abbreviating "computing and engineering" to "computing" is wrong when the article listed is an engineering article, not a computing article. In what way do you think that Staggered tuning, or Mechanical-electrical analogies are a computing articles for instance? SpinningSpark</b> 13:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have requested that Computing and engineering be added to the topic list in the Lua module dealing with this. Please revert all templates that you have changed to Computing (unless they really are computing articles) and they will be correctly categorised in due course when the module is updated. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 13:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Mechanical-electrical analogies: Category:Electronic design gives me the impression the article is about computing. The Bibliography lists Technology for Modelling: Electrical Analogies, Engineering Practice, and the Development of Analogue Computing ("Analogue Computing" being the relevant bit here).
 * Staggered tuning: "Bandwidth" is a computing term, right? "Wireless LAN" sounds like one too. Several of the works in the Bibliography say "electronics".
 * But I'm sure this all sounds laughable to you: it's just a couple of the thoughts of a layman having a cursory glance over the articles. To be quite honest, I don't really see a difference between engineering and computing: they're both just fields of study involving technology to me. But all of this seems irrelevant to the situation at hand: those articles are listed under the subsection "Engineering technology", which is within the section "Computing and engineering", which is abbreviated as "Computing". Furthermore, the  parameter is not displayed verbatim anywhere, as far as I can tell, and I don't understand how changing the topic to the parent category would be "losing the information of where the article has really been placed". My changes added the articles in question to Category:Engineering and technology good articles, which is certainly not wrong, and caused the text  Engineering and technology good article  to be displayed on the talk page template, which is not wrong either. What issue have I caused by making these changes? Why are my changes wrong? — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 13:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've reverted six of my changes . I have not reverted my changes to Talk:COBOL, Talk:FreeBSD, Talk:Heartbleed, Talk:Mya (program), because I'm fairly sure "Computing" is an accurate description for these topics. I am pretty certain I have not made any other edits where I have changed "Computing and engineering" —> "Computing". Thank you for trying to fix the problem; I wouldn't have ever realised that the problem was with Module:Good article topics/data. I apologise for wasting your time and hope I haven't unintentionally caused any other issues. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 14:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 14:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that. There are a few more showing in my watchlist, but I'll revert them myself later on. While the Lua module currently puts the text "Engineering and technology" regardless of what subtopic is specified, there is no guarantee that that won't be changed in the future, and also we don't want to confuse/mislead editors looking at this in edit mode.  Many of the articles in Computing and technology really have absolutely nothing to do with computing.  Die casting is in that topic for instance.  So is Continuous distillation.  The titles of sources is not a very reliable way of determining the topic of an article, the article lead should tell you that.  I won't go into the details of the mistakes in some of your reasoning for specific articles (unless you really want me to). <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi
The English article is Nikki Bella and Nepali article is निक्की बेला. Please just dont add language there. Teach me also how to do it all step y step! Noxboy (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Whammy! The All-New Press Your Luck
Hi Bilorv. Thanks again for reviewing many of my Game Show Network GA nominations. I was wondering if you could take a look at the above article, a 2002−03 GSN original. I think I've got pretty much everything done, except for a reception section. Since you're in the UK, I doubt you'll be able to do any better than I have with Google, but do you have any recommendations for how I could find a couple of reviews and/or ratings reports? Thanks in advance, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't think I can be much help here. I can't find any reviews of the show and TV By the Numbers doesn't seem to have any reports on ratings. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 08:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks anyway. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

COI box added to Kyabgön Phakchok Rinpoche page
Hello! Since your review of the page I have been working for Kyabgön Phakchok Rinpoche, a COI - "conflict of interest" - box was added noting my connection with the subject. While this is true, all language that might be considered "non-neutral" has been removed and all statements have been cited. Would you please help and remove the box if warranted? If not, please provide further direction. Thanks! Changchubdawa (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * sorry about not responding to your message on the talk page of the article — I saw it but I didn't have time to look through the article at the time. There no longer appear to be any serious COI issues so I've removed the box. Thank you for your work on the article. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks so much for your help and your quick response! Changchubdawa (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)