User talk:Bilorv/Archive 10

This archive is updated manually by .

Archive created 11:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Penelope Lea
If you have a source which gives her year of birth I am quite happy with that. I just dont think we should leave the article without a year. Rathfelder (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * her date of birth is unknown. You've just seen sources that prove it is either 2003 or 2004; and 2005. They cannot all be correct. I created the page saying 2005 based on one source, another person changed it to 2003 based on some other evidence, so I removed it due to inconsistency and then you asserted it was 2004.
 * We cannot speculatively include guesses based on which source may have got it wrong. I'm extremely concerned by your addition of a birth year based on an age on a particular date ("In 2018 she was 14"), given your number of edits to the site, and gave thought to escalating the situation if you've been making edits like these en masse, but I cannot see any others. The template Birth based on age as of date works for other situations, but it is not possible here to ascertain a correct birth year, only to perpetuate through citogenesis a possibly wrong one. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So you want to tell me you are up for a confrontation? Rathfelder (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * let me ask clearly and dispassionately—have you made any edits to pages not including Penelope Lea in which you add a year of birth based only on a source saying "the subject was aged X at time Y"? If the answer is no then there is no remaining issue. If the answer is yes then this is mathematically invalid (if you are 14 at some point in 2018 then you could be born in 2003 or 2004), and we can work out how to proceed to remove or adapt any possibly incorrect information. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I dont think I have. But I cant say that I regard such edits as terribly significant.  Rathfelder (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to press a bit further, at least in case it comes up in future edits. Do you understand the point I'm making about calendars, where "In 2018, some person was aged 14" does not mean "Some person was born in 2004"? And do you agree that we should not be adding years of birth unless it is definite rather than just possible or likely that a person was born in that year, and so Birth based on age as of date should be used instead for this purpose? — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I dont agree. We have thousands of historical articles where we dont have a definite date of birth. Rathfelder (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * can you point me to an example article where we specify someone's date of birth to more precision than can be verified in sources (e.g. a historical article where a date of birth is not definite, but just guessed at)? — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * No shortage of them. Master Gerhard to take one at random. Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * okay, so the article says "circa 1210". How has that conclusion been arrived at? — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Per policy, for BLPs, "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources". If the birth year is not included in the article and supported by reliable sources, there should not be a category included stating a birth year. Guessing the birth year when it's not explicitly stated and supported by sources is WP:OR.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's another - Ragnar Omtvedt. Sources dont agree when he was born. Rathfelder (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Then the discrepancy should be noted in the article, along with the differing sources (assuming they are of equal reliability). -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a problem that needs correction. I've temporarily removed the date of birth entirely, but Ponyo is completely correct that we could note the discrepancy and avoid categorisation or statement of DOBs as fact. Look at Sean Lock (and see the corresponding talk discussions) for one good resolution (with a date of death). Meanwhile, I'm still interested to hear why "circa 1210" was arrived at for Master Gerhard. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I dont think we need to take people out of categories because sources dont agree. Editors need to make judgements, and note the differences if they are significant. Rathfelder (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For BLPs the categories are dictated by the reliably sourced content within the article; they should never imply anything not explicitly stated. That's the policy. For all other biographies, WP:COPDEF applies. How can a birth year be a defining characteristic if its accuracy is in doubt? Category:Year of birth uncertain would seem more appropriate. Regardless, that would be a discussion for the talk page of any such article, not Bilorv's (hijacked, sorry!) talk page.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's good to have your opinion,, and this is very much on topic. If sources do not agree then categories should not be used, unless there is a clear consensus among sources. We shouldn't be making judgements at all in difficult cases, as there are two simple resolutions to contradictions. The first, as above, is to explain the contradiction. The second is to lower the level of precision e.g. using "circa" or saying "1910s" rather than "1917". Perhaps is saying the same thing in other words. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that we should use a 10 year category (or maybe a century category for medieval articles) rather than leaving birth unknown - or putting in a contested date without explanation. Rathfelder (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Question from Gshaw9614 (02:24, 11 January 2022)
Hi - I'm trying to submit a company page but it keeps saying it looks too much like an advertisement (the last editor also said CoinDesk isn't a reliable source, which is interesting since it's a news source for cryptocurrency). Would you mind helping me? --Gshaw9614 (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * CoinDesk certainly isn't reliable. Take a look at WP:NCRYPTO and CoinDesk's entry at WP:RSP. Unlike you, I am not being paid to edit Wikipedia, so I cannot help you free the draft from its obvious advertisement intent. We recommend against editing in your own interests, because whether intentionally or not, people are unable to write neutrally about their employer. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Why Marx Was Right scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 8 February 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/February 2022, or to make more comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks,, really glad to see you like it. Impressive to get "Jack of all trades"—I think that one's really hard—and nice to see one of my noms (Remedial Chaos Theory) counted as one of your review credits. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Decline
Can you further explain your decline here? Is it the quality of the sources? – AssumeGoodWraith  (talk | contribs) 00:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * many issues. For the draft to be accepted, the topic needs to be notable now, not expected to be notable if the game is released. The sources' reliability strikes me as questionable, but I did not investigate further as even if reliable, they are all routine coverage that provide no substantial information, just speculation, press release information and very basic expected details of the game. This is not the sort of in-depth, substantial coverage needed for notability. Moreover, were the topic notable, at a one-sentence piece of information it would be better off as a sentence in a larger article. — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I was going to make a very short stub with a bunch of sources for others to expand. Guess I'll wait. – AssumeGoodWraith  (talk | contribs) 00:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Minimalist
I saw your call for a quick GA and I responded with Saint Vincent Beer. Bonus: it is still DYK eligible as a 5x expansion -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 15:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * glad to see it—very quick work! I've added you to User:Bilorv/Challenges. Feel free to add yourself to any future ones. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Question from CynMTU (17:12, 18 January 2022)
Hi there - I am wondering how my home page got created and you were assigned as my mentor so I can help other newbies get the same thing. Can you remind me how I made this happen? --CynMTU (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for the question! The mentor and homepage are new features that I believe are only gradually being rolled out to a random selection of new users, so I do not think there is a way to enable it for those people who do not already have it. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am fortunate to have it and you! Thanks for the help.CynMTU (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Question from Chijioke Euna Chizoba on Lander University (22:34, 18 January 2022)
Hello --Chijioke Euna Chizoba (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Let me know if you have any questions. — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Thank you today for Why Marx Was Right, introduced: "A quite long-term project of mine (including a long off-wiki writing process), Why Marx Was Right is my third article nominated for FA status. I've written lots of book articles before, but neglected to take many through feature-quality processes. A lot of research went into this article, perhaps the most of any of the 125 or so articles I've created."! - yesterday was my turn, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft review of Gohenry app
Hey, thank you for your previous AfC review of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gohenry. I recently added a portion of reliable sources with deep coverage: the Daily Mirror, This is money, The Economist, New York Times (good mentions in 2 stories), etc. I've put them mostly into Overview section. Please review when you have a chance. Best wishes. --81.107.197.73 (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the changes, and they look like they address the lack of notability problem, but the Fintech sources still need to go and the Daily Mirror is not a reliable source. I will leave the review to another person, but it would help if you can make those removals of bad sources and badly sourced information. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Bilorv thanks for your help. I removed not reliable sources (maybe most of them) and added another reliable as Computer Weekly, another the Guardian and BBC news. --81.107.197.73 (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the changes. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Smile :)
 Hello Bilorv, Pamzeis has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. 19:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Kity🐈💓

&#91;&#91;Facebook:&#34;Figaro452&#34;&#93;&#93; (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC) 
 * Thanks,, and welcome to Wikipedia! — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The May Pamphlet
Hi! I have the same question for you but vice versa. :) Just a heads up that if you're interested in politics-related book articles and have the inclination, Featured article candidates/The May Pamphlet/archive1 is open for feedback and reviews. Best wishes, czar  17:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message, . Definitely an interesting article. Can't guarantee I'll have the time but I'll make it a priority if I can. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Reunited
Hi Bilorv,

I am just checking if you can review an article I have drafted at Draft:Reunited (TV Series) as you helped me with a previous draft just recently.

Kind Regards Arlene --ArleneHerman (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * in general I don't accept requests to skip the queue, but I can say that I'd be very dubious about accepting this one. Upcoming TV series are only notable if they would be significant in television history even if they did not air, per "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". I'm not seeing how this show would be notable if it went unaired—usually we need (inter)national reviews or awards to show notability of a programme. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Bilorv. I do agree with you on this one just regarding to it still yet to air. So I will let the draft sit here until later. I will look for sources in the mean time. Maybe when it does air, there will be more sources that come to light. Thanks --ArleneHerman (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, there's no issue at all with improving it as a draft and waiting for coverage when it airs, . — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Question from CynMTU on WikiProject Michigan Technological University (18:26, 24 January 2022)
Hi - I am editing my wikiproject page and am wondering why it doesn't allow me to use the visual editor --CynMTU (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for the question! To be honest, I'm not sure of the answer. I know Visual Editor has some limitations, and possibly it is not available for pages in the Wikipedia namespace. Perhaps by testing you can see whether it is available in the edit window for any pages beginning "Wikipedia:". You can also take a look at VisualEditor as a starting point to learn more about it.
 * If this answer isn't satisfactory (which is fair enough!) then you could try asking at the Teahouse. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Leah Croucher
See User_talk:Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ha, thanks for letting me know about this, . This is the first I'm hearing of me being an admin. The draft did not show notability when I declined it, and that's all I have to say (other reviewers can handle the resubmission). — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the first I'm hearing of me being an admin I suppose no luck to suggest it shouldn't be the last? :) I saw your prior comments about running if the admin elections had passed; I still have much more skepticism about that system than you do (considering what happened when we devolved functionary selection to an election process), but hey, if you're getting so much thought-you-were-one-already... (I had one of those moments recently. It was a real shock.) Vaticidalprophet 00:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * a day that an outstanding RfA candidate (with many fewer past mistakes to be flogged with than myself) attracts a large degree of unjustified negative commentary from hypocrites who claim to want more admins is not the day I will be convinced to run for RfA. Due to real-life factors, I would have to run one in my own time, but I wouldn't hold out much hope that I will have the endurance to. I'd have to be prepared to have an RfA that crashed and burned humiliatingly and would leave me with much reason and emotional impetus to quit Wikipedia forever, or worse (ha ha only serious), to actually be an admin at the end of the week. — Bilorv ( talk ) 03:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

CP and the mop
Regarding your question to me about admins seeing undeleted child pornography, such matters should be e-mailed to the WMF and while WP:Oversight doesn't explicitly say anything about it I do think it would be suppressed. As for adminship, while non-admins are certainly liable to see such material, I would imagine that admins are overall quite more likely given that dealing with deleted/suspect material is a part of their duties. While Cauldron themself wanted to stick with DYK, it would not be out of the question for them, or any other admin, to migrate to deletion matters, even if only to see deleted diffs out of personal curiosity; indeed, any further unbundling of the "core tools" has been soundly rejected repeatedly, including quite recently, to account for this. As such, I would prefer that admins be legal adults. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your further explanation, . I do not agree with your position but you have made it a lot clearer to me. (Emailing the WMF is a fair call, but child pornography is definitely suppressable under WP:OSPOL#5, and perhaps other criteria as well, so I think I'd contact both the WMF and OS.) — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Another challenge to think about
I got you as a mentor when I enabled Special:Homepage on a whim; I'm not sure why but I guess that's a coincidence since I had a question for you anyway. For User:Bilorv/Challenges can I suggest a challenge about an article for something in all 50 US states? Or something in all 13 Canadian provinces and territories? (I was going to suggest something like a subject from all countries of the world, but some places like the Vatican are way too small.) --Epicgenius (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Seconding this, as 50 states is a big but generally achievable goal. Also offering an idea for a bonus: an article or DYK credit from each county within a state.  Sounder Bruce  05:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that may work, but it would be much easier to complete the challenge for a state like Delaware (3 counties) compared to Texas (254). For the sake of consistency, and so that people don't focus too much on Delaware and Rhode Island, I'd actually make that 3 challenges: a small state with less than 10 counties, a medium-sized state with 10-99 counties, and a large state with over 100 counties. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * hmm, I said here that I'm not too keen on anything U.S.-specific, and states or administrative region challenges seem quite difficult to balance as the numbers will vary wildly between different countries. On the other hand, ridiculous as it may be we do have Round the world for anyone brave enough to tackle it. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Question from Decameronetea (09:37, 3 February 2022)
How to create a new page or bio anta person --Decameronetea (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * creating a new article is one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia, so I can only recommend that you do not do this at this stage in your volunteering. Instead, we have millions of existing articles that need improvement. Adding reliable sources to articles would be one very helpful task. Check out WP:RSP to get a feel for what sources are generally good and bad. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, . — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Hey, why u say my article just like promotion/advertising?

Abcfriends (talk) 10:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC) 
 * phrases like "Critics and fans often credit him for his musical versatility" and "He is considered as a leading figure in the SoundCloud and Hiphop genres" read more like a press release than a Wikipedia article, where a neutral voice is required. Another fundamental problem with the draft is its lack of reliable sources: note that primary sources like the songs on Spotify or YouTube do not contribute towards notability (all they show is that the topic exists), and wikis and other user-generated content are not reliable. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh Thank you. Abcfriends (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

why marx was right
hello, Bilorv! i had a question regarding this article and the associated blurb. both the blurb and article lead mention that the author's "commentary on historical materialism was praised". however, i seem to be unable to find explicit mention of this in the section about the book's reception. is it possible that "historical materialism" is inadvertently being conflated with "materialism"? admittedly, my familiarity of the terminology used is not very strong, but my understanding is that "materialism" focuses on the nature of matter, such as the idea that consciousness is based on matter, while "historical materialism" focuses on explaining the course of human history by analyzing how its societies produced material.although it appears to me that marx's views on historical materialism are raised throughout the book, the synopsis makes me believe that historical materialism is most strongly addressed in the fifth chapter. since this is amongst the chapters praised by the times literary supplement, the statement that the "commentary on historical materialism was praised" appears to be technically supported by the article body text, albeit possibly by only the mention of one critic. however, i am assuming that the review was not specifically interested in how the book had focused on historical materialism in that chapter, as the review itself characterizes the fifth chapter as being on "economism".in contrast, the article body explicitly states that "[r]eviewers highlighted Eagleton's sections on materialism as particularly strong". considering that this seems to be the topic covered that was most praised by critics, and also appears to be what eagleton himself felt was amongst the book's most important points, it seems strange to explicitly mention the praise of the commentary on historical materialism in the blurb and article lead, rather than the praise of the commentary on materialism, which is why i was wondering if this was intentional. dying (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for the question. "Materialism" is used throughout the article somewhat interchangeably with "historical materialism", as this is the branch of materialism that is relevant to Marxism. However, "historical materialism" is used in the lead, blurb and first mention in the body for unambiguity, and it is then referred to as "materialism". Any reference to "materialism" in sources is similarly a reference to "historical materialism", as this is the subject explored in Why Marx Was Right. The sixth (not fifth) chapter is about this topic, but it is relevant and mentioned in chapters three to five as well.Historical materialism is a materialist philosophy, as are the ideas you refer to. Like libertarianism (which can be far-left or far-right) or utilitarianism (which can advocate never following rules, or never breaking rules), materialism contains many different, contradictory ideas, depending on which thinker you are referring to. In Marx's case, as Eagleton puts it in Why Marx Was Right: "Whether the world is made of matter, spirit or green cheese is not a question over which Marx lost much sleep ... whatever materialism meant to him, it certainly did not revolve on the question of what the world was made out of ... Materialism for Marx meant starting from what human beings actually were, rather than from some shadowy ideal to which we could aspire. And what we were was in the first place a species of practical, material, bodily beings. Anything else we were, or could be, had to be derived from this fundamental fact." (p.128-130) This is the materialist core that leads to the conclusions you refer to, that "the course of human history [can be explained] by analyzing how its societies produced material". — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I won't object
If you reverse my changes on ND Stevenson, I won't object, I just wanted to explain my rationale for adding those tweets. But, thinking about what you said, I can agree that there should be secondary sources. --Historyday01 (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * Hi, . In a reply above, I gave you advice about Draft:Starscixn (rapper). It looks like you have not yet made improvements to the draft based on this. Can you do that? — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you please tell me what am i supposed to do? Abcfriends (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Read the reply again, follow the links I have given if you are unsure of the meanings of the terms, and make improvements to the draft based on that. I can only give further help if you show me what you can do based on the advice I have already given. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Broadness in GA
hiya, Bilorv! looks like you could use a more thought-provoking question on your talk page; in that spirit, I'm wondering about C. J. Cregg. For my last West Wing GA, Mrs. Landingham, I was only comfortable nominating when there was substantial information about character role, key moments that show character, reception, legacy, development, the whole potato. But I came across this Tolkien GA, Pippin Took, and it just feels ridiculously bare-bones to me (it was promoted in 2020). It's not even like the GA nomination was a gimme, or just a check mark review; looks to me like someone serious was on the reviewer's end. So, in developing C. J. Cregg's article, do I really need to include the whole thing in seeking a GA? Am I unintentionally going closer to FA, or is Took's article worthy of a GAR? I mean, either way, it's not going to compromise the quality of the content I want to make, but I'm wondering if FAs in the mirror are closer than they appear. Thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question, —it certainly has provoked some thought in me. The cop-out answer that jumps out at me is "different articles are different: they have different numbers of available sources, different amounts of known information and different lengths that are appropriate". However, there is something deeper here about different editors having quite different standards for when they think something is GA-ready, and maybe quite different standards too in what they're going to pass as a reviewer.I wouldn't consider a GAR for Took, particularly not without some subject knowledge to say "this content is missing; these sources are omitted but quite key". It is on the short side, which I think could cause problems at FA, but to look at de-GA'ing for lack of broadness, I'd want to pinpoint a concrete section that is either missing or ridiculously short. Possibly the article could split "Reception" into "Analysis" (what's the purpose of the character?) and "Reception" (did reviewers think the character achieved that purpose?), but in some cases there won't be the sources to justify that, and in any case I think the single section there is long enough to fall into "broad". "Broad" definitely doesn't mean "comprehensive".I think most of my GAs hit the point where they're (at the end of the review) 3/4 of the way between GA and FA, and just need little tweaks and one more go at finding any sources that could add something. But this is what I'm comfortable doing, and what I enjoy: it just wouldn't be in my style to be less thorough, because I tend to write in small numbers of very lengthy editing sessions, and the first step is opening dozens of tabs with every available source I can find. There's nothing wrong with someone else whose natural style (e.g. lots of incremental improvements over more sessions) will produce content closer to the border of GA.I would also note that Took is well-sourced (and I guess the convention here is to include primary sources for plot points as a whole series will be too big to say "implicitly sourced to LOTR/West Wing" like for an episode summary). I think that is the primary difference between Landingham and Cregg that makes the former GA-standard and needs to be done for the latter. But really, all these review processes and internal awards systems serve two purposes, getting constructive criticism to grow as an editor, and getting a sense of satisfaction/reward. If you're getting those two things, all is good. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I gotcha, thanks! I also can't stand adding one small thing at a time; it's why I can't tackle the Big Subjects, I don't really do bite-sized. I need a dedicated day to just; tackle everything. So yeah, a lot of my GAs end up being pretty close as well. I also definitely think that GAs make us better editors :) One last question: Took seems to have a lot of unadulterated fictional bio, while Ned Flanders seems to lean towards mixing fictional background with reliably sourced interpretation about role. Is this just a stylistic choice, or does one have a clear advantage? I like the flanders style more, to be honest... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * well, Flanders is from quite a different work. Central to LOTR is an overarching plot, but The Simpsons ends almost every episode with the status quo that it started with. So there's not really much plot to describe (or, conversely, several hundred episodes too much to describe). There's also too much analytic content to fit it specifically under "Analysis", so I think that particular article is forced by circumstance to intersperse fictional content with analysis. I don't know that there's an objective advantage to one arrangement over the other in general. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh! That makes a lot of sense :) I suppose I'll have to find a middle ground, then; TWW is more driven by overarching narrative than The Simpsons (or most other TV shows with a comedy aspect that I'm aware of), but still pretty self-contained. It'll come with practice :) thanks so much! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

New TV article
Well, Bilorv, you certainly seem to be the go-to guy when it comes to advising on this kind of thing; I see I'm at the bottom of a long list of grateful recipients. You were kind enough to point me in the right direction here; it was reference to a new thing I've been working on, which started off as merely turning a redlink blue, but evolved into a bit of a project. I wondered if you'd mind giving it the once over, if you've got the time? I may be comfortable with the writing process, but TV fiction is a new one to me, with the concomitant bug bears unfamiliarity brings. Mind you, it's a police procedural, so if that's not your cup of tea, I completely understand. Cheers,  SN54129  20:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I take it the article in question is The Tower (2021 TV series)? — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Err, yes :)  what a good start, not even mentioning the bloody thing! Apologies.   SN54129  21:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * looks really good! I've done a few copyedits here—let me know if any of the reasons are unclear—but the structure is basically there. The most major thing I'm unconvinced by is the "Background" section: per MOS:TVPLOT, we generally stick to either a 200 word summary per episode or a holistic series synopsis (at least in theory). Anything that's needed to understand the episode summaries needs to go either in the episode summaries themselves, or under "Cast" (sometimes called "Cast and characters") as part of the character descriptions.However, there's some analytic content you have in "Background", like Cumming's "there isn't much pure evil here..." quote. If you think the reviewer commentary is substantial, adding in analytic content that's not simply a restatement of the plot, then an "Analysis" section (below "Episodes") could hold this type of information. Or, if there's not much of it, it sometimes goes in "Reception".Some more minor comments:
 * Some people don't like "cast member X was known for appearing in Y" at all—I think it can be good to a certain extent but what you've got is a bit too much detail (I don't need Whelan's whole filmography, for instance).
 * You quote the viewing figures as 5,566,745 but false precision is quite a bugbear of mine: note that BARB's figures are always estimates because they only actually track the TV habits of about 12,000 people and for online views you can tell how many people are sitting at the same screen. I'd say 3 significant figures (5,570,000) is more than enough.
 * You have "Second series" nested under "Reception", but I might put it as its own section, "Potential second series" or "Future" or something. Or, include it as a subsection under "Production".
 * Overall, though, you definitely couldn't tell from reading it that you're new to TV fiction articles. It's very informative and well-developed. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Very kind! I've had a go at what you suggested, but I admit the whole character/cast thing is tricky...a tricky balance, I mean. Do you think there is a GA in there?  SN54129  17:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * something has gone wrong in the lead with it ws mostly filmed in the northwest of England, particularly Liverpool and couldn't make out whether he was from Salford or uh Manchester. Also an interesting ref title: Document unavailable - ProQuest. And something I didn't pick up on before: MOS:TVPLOT gives a word limit of 200 per episode.Yes, I don't think it's too far from being ready to nominate for GA, if you've got all the sources you can find (reviews and interviews). If it were me, I'd leave it for a couple of days, come back to it with a fresh pair of eyes for copyediting, consistent reference formatting, paragraphing and grouping content and so on. And then nominate it. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these further points Bilorv, which I've actioned as far as my ability takes me. All that is, except your last: I'm afraid I tend to forget/ignore/give up on things if I don't do them while they're fresh, so the nom went in tonight. Not sure what happened with that bizarre stuff in the lead; I put it down to a copy/paste thing, but. Anyway, have a good weekend, and thanks for allowing the picking of your brain. Cheers,  SN54129  19:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries,, and good luck with the GA nomination. — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Challenge idea: MOS examples
Thought this might be an interesting challenge. Getting an article linked in the Manual of Style or another core project page (like naming conventions) that is used as an example up to GA or FA. So for MOS:UNIT, an eligible article might be revolutions per minute or hand (unit). I thought of this after noticing that an article I'm currently working on (Bothell, Washington) is linked from WP:PRECISION.  Sounder Bruce  00:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Phenomenal idea, . I'll work out some rubric to make it sufficiently difficult and make clear the spirit of the Challenge (you can't just add your own example and then get that to GA/FA), and get back to you. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * what do you think? I think MoS only (not other "core" PAGs) keeps it simpler, and there's still tons of articles to choose from.
 * Textbook example: get an article that is linked from any Manual of Style page (a page linked in Template:Manual of Style) to good article status.
 * — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks great!  Sounder Bruce  18:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Request on 10:28:09, 22 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Francoisvluk
Hi you rejected my revised submission for Dialog+. I had already revised to make sure I removed any emotive language and based my revision on other similar entries on Wikipedia. I made sure that any information was referenced by academic papers published in peer reviewed journals to ensure that all statements are based on verifiable sources. If you could give me any specific examples of language that is not neutral? I would not ask but did spend a lot of time revising the article in line with recommendations so I'm clearly not getting it. Also do you feel that the sources are not adequate? The links to the materials are to the author's original NHS-based website because that is where the training and material are freely provided so I cannot link to third parties there, but all other links are to published peer reviewed journal articles and I cannot think of sources that would be more verifiable or sound? Finally, is any of it salvageable, or do you feel it's all incorrect? Hugely appreciated. Francois

Francoisvluk (talk) 10:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question,, I appreciate that you've put a lot of work into the draft. I think what set alarm bells ringing was language like DIALOG+ is a technology-assisted and resource oriented intervention based on quality of life research, patient centred communication and solution-focused therapy and In light of these findings, the intervention was further developed with the aim to enhance the original scale with a therapeutic intervention. The new intervention was called DIALOG+, and it incorporated an additional 4-step approach that was based on the principles of solution focused therapy. I think I can see why you would write in this style, but perhaps you might see why this reads to me more like a sales pitch or website "About us" page than a neutral encyclopedia article.I was also a bit concerned by the length of parts of the "History" section and other material that is only referenced to primary sources. If something hasn't been covered by secondary sources, then we generally shouldn't be including it unless it's fundamental and simple e.g. the year something was released. A numbered list introduced as "The four step approach includes" is going to be too much detail. However, if this source is not actually by any of the researchers involved in DIALOG+ (I see lots of similar drafts where links to journal articles are just the original researchers' expositions—valuable but not independent), then that does strengthen the case for accepting at least a little.Something I missed that I really should have caught is that the content under "The four step approach includes ..." is not your own words, but not in quotation marks (and it wasn't clear to me that it was a quote). You must let me know what other content, if any, has been copied from other sources (even if referenced). We take copyright violations (which are mostly introduced by editors unintentionally) very seriously.I may have been a bit harsh on declining with the "advertisement" rationale, in hindsight, and even though I'm in general very, very firmly against conflict of interest editing, in this case it does look to me like you have produced a very strong draft that would make a good addition to Wikipedia. So if you read the above and make any further changes you feel are reasonable then ping me again and I'll either accept it, or leave a comment referencing this discussion and let you resubmit it. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for this, and apologies for the delay in responding. I will take another go at addressing the comments you have made, and do intend to try and resubmit. Hopefully this will be done soon. It is useful to have the detailed feedback, which I appreciate. Francoisvluk (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have made the edits. I just wanted to check - you indicated you might be able to accept it if the changes have been sufficient? I've neutralised the language, and provided additional secondary sources. Let me know if there's more that could be done, and many thanks for all the time you have spent guiding me through this. Francoisvluk (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the changes, —upon further review, I think at this point I'm not sufficiently well-versed in the topic area to accept/decline the new draft, but I would encourage you to resubmit it so another volunteer can take a look. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Question from Best boisterous (13:03, 24 February 2022)
Hello I want to ask that where can I find friends ?💜 --Best boisterous (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for the question! Wikipedia is not a social media network, and we don't have a "friends" system. Everything we do here is about improving our encyclopedia. You can ask questions to me, or at the Teahouse forum. You can find WikiProjects on topics you're interested in e.g. WikiProject Television where you can work with volunteers interested in the same things as you. — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay thanks were can I do test, projects and enjoyable writing things Best boisterous (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi —you asked me this question twice but I'll answer it just once, here. You can make test edits to pages in your userspace, like by creating User:Best boisterous/Sandbox, or in the global sandbox Sandbox. However, these pages are still focused on improving the encyclopedia, so it's okay to make tests that will help you learn the wikitext of Wikipedia or practice skills, but Wikipedia is not just a space for creative writing projects. For that, you might want to look at Fandom or creating your own website or other parts of the internet. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Question from Best boisterous (17:27, 24 February 2022)
Greetings to you my mentor I want to ask that where can I get test, projects and enjoyable writing things --Best boisterous (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

MeidasTouch Semi protection request
The page about MeidasTouchkeeps getting attacked by another user named HeroicSSD who is removing a story that is sourced and needs a page protection status Persesus (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * can I suggest posting at WP:RPP? Bilorv isn't an admin so it's not possible for them to protect the page. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I will try Persesus (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for passing on this information,, and for the helpful suggestion, . I gather that the situation has now been resolved—let me know if not. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It worked and the user was banned Persesus (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiZedia proposal
Hi Bilorv, the NOTHERE block proposal is still active (but dormant) at ANI. I don't hang at ANI that often, and it's not entirely clear to me how and when something gets acted on, even if it appears to have a lot of support. I know there's been a drop in the number of admins, so maybe that's a factor. Or maybe, the lack of direct damage at en-wiki was what did it; not really sure. It's getting close to the top of the page, and I guess will get archived, if no one picks it up before that. Maybe it's undergoing a pocket veto? Mathglot (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops, not anymore. Got archived 5 minutes after I wrote. Mathglot (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * yes, I too have been confused sometimes when noticeboard discussions just end by archival, and it seems no-one is interested in following it up. Chalk it down to no option to watchlist just a section of a page, if you like. In this case, the only active Wikipedian of the three was blocked, and the other two are likely not going to do much damage, but if you want to pursue it further I could only suggest re-raising it in a new ANI thread, perhaps just with "can any admin assess the result of this discussion and take action if there is consensus for any?" It seems to me like there is a consensus there for blocking all three users, and all that remains is for an admin to conclude this and implement it. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess we'll have to put up with just the one being blocked. No point pursuing further at this point, as I have the strong feeling that it did not go unseen, just un-acted upon, and even though I agree with you, I suspect that re-raising it may just generate more annoyance than response, not a position I want to be in, although I think admins wouldn't go further than just annoyance if I did.
 * There's another odd coincidence here, though: in fact, I just learned about some coming changes that will enable everyone to watch a thread, and I've been able to do this since yesterday. The notice I saw somewhere about it mentioned a Beta feature that you can opt in to, if you wish to try it out before actual launch. Go to Preferences ➢ Beta features ➢ Discussion tools, check the box, and Save. You should see a new [ subscribe ] link on the section header line, and it contains some reply features as well. So far, I haven't had a problem with it, but it's only been less than a day. Mathglot (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The new Signpost just came out, and this article is relevant to what we've been talking about. Mathglot (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * indeed. I've been using Convenient Discussions for a couple of months or so, which seems to have a feature to artificially "watchlist a section" (I assume it just watchlists the page and then hides lines on your watchlist after the page loads that are from irrelevant section edits—I haven't tried it). What you're describing seems to be a plan to formally deploy a more modest version of this tool's functionality, which has its disadvantages but is pretty revolutionary. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That looks very impressive. I'll maybe wait till the launch next week, and then compare that to Convenient Discussions and see which way I want to go. Thanks for that link, very helpful. Mathglot (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Grammar Louis CK
Hi Bilorv. Of course it was good faith (although I'd hope the message on my page might have been read) but I'm afraid my original grammatical edit was correct, and your reverting of it was not. It's a cut and dry case, particularly as Biden and CK are singular. Any source will corroborate. https://editorsmanual.com/articles/either-is-or-either-are/#:~:text=Either%2C%20which%20means%20the%20one,is%20and%20has%20with%20either.&text=Either%20of%20these%20is%20the%20perfect%20gift%20for%20Rita. https://archives.cjr.org/language_corner/either_wins.php NEDOCHAN (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for the information! I was not aware of this. I guess I've been using this incorrectly my whole life. Thank you for reverting my edit. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Nice one mate and thanks for taking it in the right spirit. NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

March songs
Thank you for support in the RfC for DYK! Listening to the charity concert mentioned here. I created the articles of the composer and the soprano. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gerda, two nice articles there. I always have a good time when I watch something that inspires me to create new content. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Now, you can also listen on YouTube, and more music, the piece by Anna Korsun begins after about one hour, and the voices call "Freiheit!" (freedom, instead of "Freude", joy). Music every day, pictured in songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * St. Patrick's Day, more music and today's sunset --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Prayer on the Main page, finally + new flowers, and btw: the TFA is a young writer's first --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Bach's No. 1 today, + Rose Delaunay DYK, + 2 reviewed DYK (MV Millennial Spirit and Gloria Rojas), and ITN Artem Datsyshyn, also Oksana Shvets for some hours, + Michail Jurowski may come, - no support yet, not in three days?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * and came - sad record: three RD one day, not at the same time today but still ... - two of them from Ukraine, the third a Russian who left Moscow in 1990, and then went on to conduct the orchestra where my brother plays. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sunday flowers and sounds, don't miss the extraordinary marriage of the beginnings of the theme of Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1, and Prayer for Ukraine - here! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * April to come. I put my second wall-to-wall up, did you see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * yeah I did—very impressive. I'm pleased with how the Challenges are taking off. It was fairly quiet for the first few months and now it's managed to capture a fair few people's imaginations, I think. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * thank you - dance and singing, peace doves and icecream --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * updated with a more prominent link to how to listen to the concert: Freiheit! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * another Ukraine day today: Maks Levin DYK, expanding Kyiv Symphony Orchestra (have tickets), and creating Anthony Robin Schneider, the bass who could be heard opening the singing in Beethoven's Ninth twice on 10 March 2022, live in Frankfurt, Germany, and recorded in Auckland, New Zealand, singing "Freiheit!" (freedom) instead of "Freude" (joy), in a tradition started after the Fall of the Wall. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Dove sono (Where are those happy moments ...?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Request for review
Hi, Bilorv. Thank you for your all works about the TBBT. I created the last episode of the TBBT. Would you like to review it? Much appreciated. -- Victor Trevor  ( talk ) 21:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see it! I've expanded the article a bit and rated it B-class. It'd be nice to push it to GA-class. Let me know if any of my changes don't speak for themselves. Most of my writings on TBBT are now several years old, and I'd like to think I've improved quite a bit since then, so some of the articles people have been using as templates may not be ideal. If you want some more Reviews for the review section, I'd take a look at these: IndieWire, Den of Geek, Digital Spy and Sydney Morning Herald. (I removed Metro as it's not the best-quality source.) — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the edit. This is my second article on the English Wikipedia, which the process of becomes a GA would be challenging to me. In the future, I would like to use the sources. Thank you for share it. -- Victor Trevor  ( talk ) 17:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ah, I see, well it was a good start to an article, and hopefully my edits give you some ideas for how you could make it even better next time. Perhaps one day I'll try to take it to GA—I'll put it on my longlist (so it could get done tomorrow, or 8 years from now). Thanks for reaching out! — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Question from FastWolfPanther (18:53, 12 March 2022)
Hello!!! So where can I find all the among us game games list in order? --FastWolfPanther (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for the message! I am only aware of one official Among Us game, and there's some information about its release and update timeline at Among Us. I hope this answers your question. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Will it tell me all of among us game games list in order though??? FastWolfPanther (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you also talk to people that play among us too?? FastWolfPanther (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia contains some information on Among Us, such as the article I've linked you to, but it is not a social media network, a forum or a way to talk to people that play Among Us. You will have to find other websites for those purposes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and all of the activities we take part in here are about writing, maintaining and improving our encyclopedia articles. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So does that mean that people can talk on among us? FastWolfPanther (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * no, Wikipedia is not the right place to talk about Among Us. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * But wikipedia does talk about among us it shows a picture and it talks about how to play and stuff that wikipedia shows me FastWolfPanther (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello!!!!! FastWolfPanther (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * please re-read my comments above, which answer your question. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * All I said was hi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FastWolfPanther (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It’s happening again
Someone Tried to vandalize the meidas touch thread I need a protection request again Persesus (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've fully restored the old version—if you meant to change the article rather than just restore the previous version then that should be mentioned in your edit summary. Protection should not be requested because of one-off edits, just for persistent vandalism by multiple different people (if it's one person making persistent changes then a block is likely better). If you need to report a page for protection in future then Requests for page protection has a button labelled "Request protection" (in the blue banner) that should help you make a report. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You may wish to see also Help:Reverting for how to make a revert. The "Undo" button (#Undo) is generally best to undo the most recent edit, and when you need to undo multiple most recent edits, restoring an old version via the page history (#Manual reverting) is generally best. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Don’t worry thanks Persesus (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

CrunchyOcean is heroicSSD
The crunchyocean account is heroicSSD. He is trying to undo the edits to the meidastouch page. Send word up the chain to ban him. Persesus (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is the name of the account CrunchyOcean Persesus (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * if you are accusing CrunchyOcean of sockpuppetry then you need to provide evidence of this. There is no "chain" of hierarchy on Wikipedia. Users are blocked or banned if the community decides that they need to be. That is by a sockpuppet investigation in most sockpuppetry cases. Administrators (a group that I am not part of) can only block at their discretion in cases with strong precedent established by the community (e.g. clear violation of the sockpuppetry guideline, as shown by incontrovertible evidence). — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The wall of txt for one Persesus (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Similar wording too Persesus (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * you need to give links and specific comparisons as evidence, because from this description alone, I'm not seeing a proof beyond reasonable doubt. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What more do you need other than the wall txt from him Persesus (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * what "walls of text" are you referring to? You need to link me to them. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

RE: Research volunteer
Hi Bilorv! I just sent you an email about my research project. Thanks for reachin' out!--Gen. Quon[Talk](I'm studying Wikipedia!) 13:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Question from Layjend (21:00, 23 March 2022)
How do i get recognition on Wikipedia --Layjend (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * if you are asking "can I get a Wikipedia article about myself?" then the answer is "no". Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion and we discourage people from writing about topics they are related to. If you meet the requirements for an article about your career or any of your projects—called "notability" requirements—then someone else may one day write an article. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Question from PaulFaulkner78 (12:28, 24 March 2022)
Hello- how do i create a new entry? --PaulFaulkner78 (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * at this point in your wikicareer, you could only create a draft and submit that for a more experienced volunteer to review. However, I would strongly advise you not to do this. Many people expect this is a good task for a newcomer, or it is what they are most motivated to do, but the best outcomes on Wikipedia come from editors who start by reading our policies and guidelines, slowly learning the ropes by making incremental changes to existing articles, and building up their confidence before they do one of the hardest tasks on the website—creating a new article. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Evaluating encyclopedic inclusion possibilities of LMH Oxford case
Greetings @ Bilorv

Hi, I am user Bookku. You might need to bear with my English since is not my native language. Any help in c/e would remain most welcome.

I came across your message @ WT:WIR there on went through discussion @ Talk:LMH, Oxford. By now, on WP I have worked on the topics like My Body, my choice, Consent, Me too and women's march (though country specific), and mass sexual assaults and few other women's rights and interest issues at least to reasonable extent.

I am interested in developing more articulate Encyclopedic tools and process for content inclusion criteria here at my user page. I wish Talk:LMH, Oxford case discussed by you helps us to evaluate, discuss and improve upon better articulate Encyclopedic tools and process for content inclusion criteria in relation to Campus sexual assaults.

Would like to have your inputs in regard to how and which Encyclopedic tools for content inclusion criteria (discussed @ my user page may help in taking encyclopedic note of Talk:LMH, Oxford case in any of following articles.


 * LMH, Oxford
 * Alan Rusbridger
 * MeToo movement
 * MeToo movement
 * Campus sexual assault

From open access links shared @ Talk:LMH, Oxford some aspects of obections against college administration and college response are not clear enough to me. I have not been able to access some article links being behind paywall. I would appreciate sharing of the relevant ones through email if you think will help.

Looking forward to your feed back.

Thanks and warm regards

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for the message. I do not believe this topic warrants mention at MeToo movement or Campus sexual assault, as it is not uniquely significant above other examples. LMH is a small community and The Times reports on at most eight incidents of sexual violence there, which is smaller in scale than other reports at other higher education institutions that are not mentioned. Sexual violence at university is so common that there would not be enough room in either article for lists of incidents of this size. I believe it would be recentism to include this example.If you believe the content is worth including at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford and/or Alan Rusbridger, I encourage you to join the conversation at Talk:Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, perhaps drafting a short summary of a couple of sentences that could be added to the LMH article.I have shared a couple of Times sources with you via email. — Bilorv ( talk ) 06:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I am working in my sand box incl. some comparative research and encyclopedic tool development and also with other things on my hand, it may take a week or so to come back. Mean while I will appreciate if you can share the Times' opinion piece too.


 * And also I liked the term 'uniquely significant' but is it possible for you suggest a objective criteria or define in your own words what 'uniquely significant' would mean. This will basically help me in my research topic.

Thanks and warm regards

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the other Times sources at the moment, I'm afraid. The term "uniquely significant" here means "a defining example of the situation, more historically important than any other". It has no objective criteria (nor do many terms on Wikipedia). — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I will continue to work. warm regards
 * &#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

GirlsDoPorn
(continued from User talk:Bilorv/Archive 7)

Citation number 39 shows an error. The part referring to Garcia putting a sponge in the model having her menstrual cycle. You can link that sentence to source 3; the court verdict document from Courthouse News. Seeley Booth (talk) 05:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for the message. I've moved it to my talk page rather than an archive page (which should remain static). In this edit, I've fixed the reference error using the source I intended for this fact, though the one you suggest would also have worked. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Question from CynMTU (00:08, 18 April 2022)
I need some help with this. I wrote this article about the president of our university as part of a request from a faculty member. What does this mean that it was moved to "draft space". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Richard_J._Koubek

Do not copy-paste material from sources, or your submission will be rejected for copyright violations. - I did not Write from a neutral point of view and base your article on reliable sources that are independent of the subject - I did It is strongly discouraged to write about yourself or your own business. If you do so, you must declare it. - I did declare that I wrote this article and that I am a WiR for Michigan Tech. --CynMTU (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * what you are quoting is general advice applied to all drafts, as they deal with three things that writers commonly get wrong. The article was moved from "mainspace" (viewable as a normal article) to "draft space" by in this edit with the edit summary "Articles by Paid Editors should go through the independent review process at AfC". "AfC" is an abbreviation for the Articles for Creation process, whereby writers submit their drafts to have them reviewed by an independent experienced volunteer. This is necessary in case where writers have a conflict of interest, as I understand you do here (you are being paid by an institution to write about its president).  At the bottom of the banner, there should be a button to submit it for review, if you believe the article shows notability and follows our key policies and guidelines. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Murder of Jordan Davis
"There was no gun, there was nothing that looked like a gun," said Assistant State Attorney John Guy during closing statements later in the day.

https://eu.staugustine.com/story/news/local/2014/10/01/michael-dunn-testifies-own-defense-jury-will-begin-deliberations/16100978007/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.161.58.217 (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for the message. This source is not in the article as far as I can see, but all claims in Wikipedia need to be verifiable to a reliable source included in the article, and ideally as an inline citation directly after the material it verifies. You can re-add the content with this source (though I'd be very specific: Guy said there was nothing that looked like a gun, not nothing that looked like a weapon)—if you have any questions about how to do that then please feel free to ask me, or ask a volunteer at the Teahouse. Thanks! — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Challenges category suggestion
Howdy! I was looking over your challenges and while I don't qualify for any at the moment (that I'm aware of - Strom Thurmond Filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 has one too many "i"s if I get it onto TFA) I wanted to suggest a challenge based around CSD'ing an article with each individual rationale? Or perhaps each General rationale? Just an idea, and it may well be true that this has been done so many times by so many users already that it wouldn't be much of a challenge at all. AviationFreak💬 18:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it's an interesting one, . I wouldn't want to encourage people to apply more obscure rationales where a more common one may fit instead just to tick one off, or to encourage vexatious CSDs. But then again, I already need a level of trust that people will not bend policies or good practice in order to complete the Challenges.I definitely don't think the Challenge would be too easy, I'll say that. We'd have to exclude criteria like G9 (unobtainable to almost everybody) and U1 (would just waste an admin's time to deliberately seek that one). I'll think about it—it may be feasible.P.S. the Challenges are deliberately very difficult, but some are designed more to be sought by concerted effort e.g. "Textbook example" or "Elementary", rather than something you would obtain by years of editing and some random luck. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * today performances in Ukraine - for Ukraine - for peace, at the bottom an imaginary set of eight DYK, in eight positions, - please check if ready for the challenge ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely,, that fits the challenge, and a fantastic imaginary set it is. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, added to the challenges. Today more pics, and should this woman have an article? - or only her sons? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * today Melody (not by me), and more pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I like my talk today (actually mostly from 29 May - I took the title pic), enjoy the music, two related videos worth watching! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Question from Chaoticinsurgency (23:23, 20 May 2022)
Hello is it ok for my first few posts just to be grammar fixes for I can struggle with spelling and writing long articles or even relatively short paragraphs. This is something I’m just asking because it doesn’t fell like I do much compared to others on some articles. --Chaoticinsurgency (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely,, in fact I would say that's the ideal scope for your first few edits! There's a steep learning curve to Wikipedia, so take it as slowly as possible. I regularly recommend against newcomers creating new articles: you want to study existing high-quality articles to learn what one looks like.You might find as you're editing that others undo or adapt your changes—I've done one of each here and here. Even if your edit is undone, as long as you learn from it, that's still a positive thing. Another good newcomer task is adding references (but they don't have to be perfectly formatted at first!). Stick to really high-quality sources that you can be confident in, not tabloids or gossip magazines or websites whether the authorship is unclear. See WP:RSP for some examples of (generally) good and bad sources. You can add references to existing content in an article, or add a new fact from the sources (maybe just one sentence to start with). — Bilorv ( talk ) 08:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Question from ItsHoussam16 on Sandbox (23:45, 20 May 2022)
Hi, i'm new to wikipedia , what should i do to create my new page about movies ? --ItsHoussam16 (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! Creating a new article is one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia—if you're interested in movies then I'd recommend that you make some smaller edits to existing articles. A good thing to do is to add a summary of a review in the "Reception" section of an article: if the section is shorter than five or six paragraphs, there's probably room for more review summaries. An example of an excellent "Reception" section is Eighth Grade (film) (so you'd want to pick a different film and model your writing on Eighth Grade). Some (generally) good and bad sources are listed at WP:RSP; generally, we'd be looking at reviews in professional, well-respected national or international publications.If you are determined to create an article on a particular movie that's been released nationally in cinemas, you'd need to look at WP:NFO and be 100% sure you have at least 2 (I'd recommend 4+ for safety) reviews of the film in highly respected sources. — Bilorv ( talk ) 08:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Question from Biginatventureafrica (14:13, 22 May 2022)
what is Biginat venture Africa --Biginatventureafrica (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what that is. Wikipedia is not a question-and-answer site, so all of our discussions are about how to improve the encyclopedia. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Original Research as justification for rejecting drafs
I already answered your justification in my Talk page, i understand now why you use Original Research to remove drafts from the due process in Wikipedia while a draft is submitted for evaluation. I think another editor should review it, including your justifications. After visiting your page I understood it; you have a suspected bias for left-wing and liberal stances;

"Some of their contributions focus on people or ideas which are underrepresented on Wikipedia, such as women, people of colour, transgender people, and cultures other than those of Western Europe and North America. As a result, they take an interest in WikiProject Women in Red and WikiProject Black Lives Matter."

You also said in your justification that the draft uses the concept of "Racial superiority", which is a lie. The concept of "race" is controversial scientifically and that concept ("Racial superiotity") wasn't used in the draft; it can be fact-checked by anyone. You used original research to disagree with the sources used in the article, saying that:

"(...) That factors such as wealth, university attendance, IQ and Oscar wins are measures of intelligence or demonstrate racial superiority rather than differences of opportunity". So without any scientific backing, you brought up the concept of 'opportunity', and this is your personal opinion. After that you cited "Scientific racism", well, besides lying about the content of the article you also make absurd accusations as means of reinforcing your stance, this is intellectual dishonesty, the draft says about Ashkenazi Jewish higher average IQ with plenty of scientific data supporting it, the concept of 'race' is not cited at all. Every line uses references, you used hostile accusations and original research to disagree with the sources (!). Using the concept of race the way you used (originally) can be interpreted as a form of racism, specially after you falsely accuse the draft of using the concept of "Racial superiority". At least in my country such accusations can be punished by law Sawyersx (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for the reply. Your misconception of original research is a common one: it applies not to editors' comments on behind-the-scenes pages, but to articles themselves. It is original research, for instance, to use a source that states the wealth of Jewish people in an article on Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence, when the source does not make the (rather fanciful) connection that wealth is related to intelligence. It is not, however, original research to say as an editor that an article has subtext of false racial superiority claims. Moreover, if you want to call our inclusion and exclusion criteria for what an encyclopedia is "censorship"—which you mention on my talk page—then you are free to, but do not expect to be taken seriously.Your claim that my action is outside of due process needs expansion: I reviewed the draft in full through the AfC process, as an AfC reviewer.A few closing points: I am not a liberal; legal threats can see you blocked from Wikipedia; and accusations of racist behaviour are often taken badly by other members of the community (I don't really care—if someone thinks my actions are racist then I'm interested in hearing why). — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Question from RawUtd (00:20, 31 May 2022)
Hello Bilorv, yesterday I added a comment to the town of Warwick in the UK at the end of 18th Century to present in the history section about the outcome of the Queen's Platinum jubliee city awards. I tried to reference the to the BBC article where I sourced this to in note 41 but the note section says check date value in in red and the hyperlink doesn't get directed to the original page on the BBC news website. Any ideas why this is happening? Thanks, RawUtd --RawUtd (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for your edits. The red error asks you to  and the reference had the value  . Since this parameter should contain the date when a volunteer last checked that the reference verifies the article content, it should never be a date in the future; thus, the error message. I have changed the value to 29 May 2022 in this edit, as I presume this is what you meant to write. However, even with the error the reference link should still work (as it did for me). Let me know if you have any more questions! — Bilorv ( talk ) 07:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Bilorv, I think I may have been getting a bit ahead of myself re June and not May RawUtd (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

question re possible roles
Hi there. I am the Lead Coordinator at WikiProject History. we could use some experienced editors there, who have some knowledge of editing and of history-related topics, to serve as coordinators there. would you be at all interested? please feel free to let me know. please ping me if you reply. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * history is not my main area of contribution and I fear I couldn't commit to the consistent availability you might expect from a co-ordinator, so I'll have to decline, but thank you for asking. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ok, no problem. I appreciate your reply. well, please feel free to drop by any time, anyway. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Question from ItsHoussam16 on List of video games considered the best (01:56, 1 June 2022)
Hi everyone, i'm new to wikipedia and i love video games , i decided to add a game called berzerk on the list but it fails to get included , anyone can help me include it ? --ItsHoussam16 (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for the question! I see that you've tried to add this content three times to the article, but perhaps you aren't yet comfortable using the page history to see who is undoing your edits and why. At that page history link, you can see this edit with the edit summary "Fails inclusion criteria, see talk page".This is pointing you to Talk:List of video games considered the best. At the top of this page, you should see an FAQ with three questions: "Q1: What is the inclusion criteria for this list?", "Q2: Can [X] game be added to the list?", "Q3: Can the inclusion criteria be changed?"I believe these three questions perfectly answer your question to me, but to add my own description: it seems that you have confused the list for a list of Wikipedia editors favourite games, but it is a summary of professional critics favourite games. So we do not have any leeway to add our personal favourite games. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Question from ItsHoussam16 on List of video games considered the best (02:02, 1 June 2022)
Help --ItsHoussam16 (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * (See my reply above.) — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Gaming
Hi everyone, i'm new to wikipedia and i love video games , but everytime to try to include on a list , i fail , please help ItsHoussam16 (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * (See my reply above.) — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)