User talk:Bilorv/Archive 5

This archive is updated manually by .

Archive created 08:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.
I appreciate your message. I don't edit very frequently, and honestly, I'm not very familiar with the inner workings of Wikipedia. I just like to do my little bit every now and then to help improve it in small ways. It's honestly confounded me quite a bit that one simple sentence stating an easily-verifiable fact is being stricken down so quickly.

I also appreciate your clarification about the intent of your message. Hunkybuck (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC) - Hi Bilrov, I'm wondering why my article "Decarceration in the United States" is not showing up in a Google search; neither is "Decarceration" on Wikipedia. I'd appreciate any guidance you can offer. I see that other Wikipedia articles I've written with fewer views do show up. ? Thanks, Marcy

Deletion request
I've deleted your user page as you request. May I ask why it had to go? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that! Just needed to delete and recreate the page for a technical reason, so it's back. Sorry if you felt bad thinking you were getting rid of all that content! — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh, I was worrying that you were about to retire or anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

GA article history
Hi there, Bilorv! I don't believe we've ever interacted. Very nice to make your acquaintance! I have a question and a favor to ask. I recently had a GA nomination that was passed:. I was wondering whether you could assist me in adding an article history template, as you did on my other passed GA,. Thank you very much in advance! KyleJoan talk 04:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, of course, done. Not sure if there was anything in particular that confused you but here's how it works: for each action on the page, you add four parameters,,  ,   and  . The "x" is an incrementing number: 1 for the first action, 2 for the second etc. The first one is a code for what the thing was—for a good article nomination it's "GAN", and for others, see Template:Article history. The second is the date it happened; the third is the page name of the review; and the fourth is whether it "passed" or "failed" (for GANs). An optional fifth parameter to add if you're keen (which I am) is  , where you go to the article's history panel, find the edit where the action had just ended, click on its timestamp and then copy the number in the URL after "&oldid=".  Those fill in each row of the template and then   and   is the bit that makes "Kenny Omega has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles ..."  While I was at it, I noticed that the nominator forgot to list the article at Good articles/Sports and recreation, which I did in this edit, and which should make a bot come along shortly and add Good article to the top of the article page. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for doing all of that! I didn't know whether there was a shorter version of what to type or if the nominator was even allowed to create the template, so all of that information is very helpful. Cheers! KyleJoan talk  06:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television on whether we should use, abandon, or rewrite WikiProject Big Brother/Structure of series or season articles. Jayab 314  16:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Moleculer
Hey Bilorv

Thank you for reviewing my draft. I've removed all blog (Medium, LinkedIn) references and added more reliable ones (InfoWorld, UbuntuPIT and others). Regarding Github references, I partially agree with you. I agree that Github's comments are not a reliable source and shouldn't be used as a reference. However, I disagree that a reference to anything Github-related is unreliable. For example, Moleculer is part of Microsoft's Web Template Studio (a Github hosted project). Again, I agree that not every account at Github can be considered a reliable source. However, I think that accounts from reputable companies such as Microsoft, Apple, Facebook and other should be considered as reliable. I mean, these accounts are managed by professionals and experts in the area meaning that the content that they provide is validated and reliable.

That being said, can you please check my draft again and check if the references that I've added satisfy Wikipedia's criteria? Thank you very much AndMaz (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for the message. Indeed websites such as Github can occasionally be reliable when they are provably written by a professional individual or organisation, but even in this case they are never secondary sources and thus their utility is limited. See WP:PRIMARY—for instance, it's sometimes okay to use them for statements of fact but they don't contribute towards "notability", in Wikipedia jargon. I should have been clearer on this point, so my apologies.  As for your new sources, they are certainly an improvement. InfoWorld is a significant website and the author is a seasoned professional, so this contributes towards notability, but only a limited amount as Moleculer gets only 1/18th of the article's coverage. UbuntuPIT looks like a much more niche website and again the article is a listicle, so that's quite limited supporting coverage. They contribute to notability but still don't establish it in full. The fact of the matter is that some topics are too niche for Wikipedia—contrary to popular belief, we don't include articles on everything, just things with widespread media coverage. If Moleculer currently lacks widespread coverage then it may not be possible to demonstrate notability for it.  Another thing I should say is that if you are a contributor to Moleculer then you have a conflict of interest and we have some policies about how you should disclose this and we have some guidelines about how best to act. And finally I'd just like to say that I'm sure it's very frustrating to wait so long before your draft is reviewed, so apologies that it took so long—this is one of the problems with being a volunteer website, really, as we have some backlogs in places like our draft reviewing process because they're not the most enjoyable tasks. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Bilorv thanks for the quick response. I've in fact made some voluntary contributions to the project (fixed some bugs and improved some things). I don't know if it can be considered as a COI.
 * Anyway, if the draft doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's criteria you can delete it.

-- Hi Bilrov, Hi Bilrov,


 * Keep up with the good work :) Best regards AndMaz (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: A cup of tea for you!
Thanks for the cup of tea. I noticed that you are a fan of Black Mirror. If you are interested, I drew a piece of crossover art between USS Callister and Rick and Morty. You may want to read the description to get some context behind it, including why I did the illustration in the first place. 76.126.49.152 (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message! I have seen Rick and Morty as well as Black Mirror and that is a very interesting piece of art. — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * USS Callister has been interpreted as a criticism of toxic masculinity being implemented anywhere and everywhere (even by a stereotypically “harmless, mistreated nerd”), such as one’s favorite works of fiction, and most people have heard of the Szechuan Sauce incident in relation to Rick and Morty. This is why I found myself thinking, “What if Robert Daly was a fan of Rick and Morty instead of Star Trek?”. 76.126.49.152 (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

York City Knights
Hi Bilorv, we’re rapidly approaching the first anniversary of the removal of my AWB rights, as I mentioned back on 14 January 2019, I manually remedied any issues surrounding my AWB edits, and many other unrelated errors besides. I’ve continued my manual editing throughout 2019. However, there’s one issue that’s been bugging me, and that’s as a result of a merger/demerger of the York City Knights and York Wasps articles, all the pre-2002 related articles should be related to York Wasps and not to York City Knights. Would it be possible for my AWB rights to be reinstated? Alternatively, would it possible to remedy all the articles that currently link to the York City Knights article such that…


 * York => York
 * Ryedale-York => Ryedale-York
 * York Wasps => York Wasps

Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 13:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for the message and sorry for the slow reply! Thanks for your work over the last year, particularly involving rectifying AWB mistakes. About the changes you mention specifically, the third change looks correct, but I have some issues with the others.
 * Both of the first two changes will solve nothing if, for instance, York Wasps is later split into three separate articles: York (rugby league club) (1868-1989 club), Ryedale-York (1989-1996 club) and York Wasps (1996-2002 club). Instead the solution for the second is to change Ryedale-York to Ryedale-York, so that the redirect Ryedale-York can direct to the appropriate article—this could be changed with just one edit if there are later splits, merges or moves. For the first, I'd recommend changing York to York (or similar) and creating York (rugby league club) as a redirect to (currently) York Wasps. I don't have the spare time to make these changes myself but asking for help at a WikiProject might be a good next step, probably Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league initially but parent projects if that doesn't get any response.
 * As for re-requesting AWB rights, I'm afraid I wouldn't support this without being convinced that similar issues to those we had last year won't reoccur. For instance, in situations like the above, you still seem to be thinking on a page-by-page basis rather than considering the broader question, "What schematic would make things easy to change in the future?" In particular, if there are splits, merges or moves then manual/semi-automatic edits en masse should always be a last resort, an immediate first consideration being the use of redirects for advanced planning. There were also some other issues that led to the rights being removed and I'd like to see explanation in your own words of why you think that happened and what you would do differently in future. But I have no formal authority to deny you AWB access, so if you did make the decision to re-request them then I would have to add some comments about the context in which the rights were removed, but it would be up to an uninvolved admin to officially decide. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for my very tardy response... I believe the change of the club name from York F.C. (being founded in 1868 a prefix of R. or R.L. to F.C. wasn’t required) to Ryedale-York to York Wasps was due to relocation and marketing, but the club remained the same legal entity, whereas the York City Knights club that was founded after a 5-month gap, was a different legal entity, so I believe the demerger into York Wasps and York City Knights articles was correct. However, this has meant that since the 3 February 2019 redirects from 450+ articles relating to events prior to 31 August 2002 have been incorrectly redirecting to York City Knights.

I have changed those redirects that are appropriate to York Wasps (but are actually unused) to redirect to York Wasps rather than inappropriately to York City Knights. Taking your points on board, I believe that the articles that incorrectly redirect to the York City Knights article should be corrected such that…


 * York => York F.C.
 * Ryedale-York => Ryedale-York
 * York Wasps => York Wasps

Best regards

DynamoDegsy (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * yep, this looks correct. I've discovered the page AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks, which might be a good place to post this. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information and advice. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Earth Strike
no secondary source in the article that says this and I can't see evidence on the website that the movement is ongoing, rather than that pages are out of date or related movements are being linked to. With so many movements getting together, groups and their sub-groups, it can be hard to follow. So here are some future activities I consider as evidence: in January, EarthStrike will be part of the "BY 2020 WE RISE UP"  and in April, the global climat strike. There are also many smaller activities such as this meeting tomorrow in Edinburgh, GB; and so on.

Can these be not considered as evidence?

Note that open organisation has become harder and, partly due to privacy concerns, they have moved their reddit group to zulip.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C2C:5FF0:6863:A68A:C9C2:E053 (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm afraid these are all unreliable or primary sources. Wikipedia should be based on reliable secondary sources. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Birth Name of Public Official is not private personal information
"Please do not add sensitive private personal information to Wikipedia. You may be blocked for further violations of our Biography of Living Persons guidelines. — Bilorv (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)"

Putting a public official's birth name does not violate the Biography of Living Persons guidelines, not in the least. Under the privacy of names section, it clearly states "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." Challenor is neither a private individual and her birth name has been widely disseminated because she is public official. You can literally find her birth name from the top 5 google searches, except from wikipedia itself. This is also the same woman who posted her birth certificate on twitter, so I would say she has zero expectation of privacy when it comes to her name. Also, like I said, she is a public official who was running for an elected position. How can you be serious with the removal of my edit and charge of violations that are clearly not violations in the slightest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawyermade (talk • contribs) 15:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * the passage you quote is a reason to omit the name as it has not been widely published by reliable secondary sources. Google tailors searches to the previous internet behaviour of individuals; Challenor's birth name is not mentioned in any of the top five sources in my Google search, but nonetheless this is all besides the point. Challenor has expressed a clear wish for people to not use her birth name and the publishing of trans people's birth names leads in many cases to their safety being compromised, so we must err on the side of caution. Do not post personal information without a reliable secondary source anywhere on Wikipedia in future. As for the oversight of your edit, I did indeed request this but it was an uninvolved oversighter that made the judgement that the edit fell afoul of WP:OSPOL. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * This still is not a relevant excuse for this person's case at all. I do not see how the birth name could threaten the safety of this person. For starters, as I said before, they were a public official and have a lower expectation of privacy, knowing their birthname will not induce any extra risks to the safety of that person. Also, the person has already had their name officially changed with UK government and posted a picture of the new birth certificate publically on social media, so how would the old birthname lead to this persons safety being compromised since they no longer can be found through that name. I could understand if it were an "anonymous", only going by handle name, journalist, youtuber, etc. But this is a public official, who's real name is known and can be easily identified with, I do not see how an old name that is no longer official according to the UK government, can cause this person's safety to be compromised. Also, the google search was not tailored to my searches, I checked in an incognito window. Try it out, open an incognito windows and google, verbatim, aimee challenor birth name, it is the second link. I appreciate your response but just because this person may not like their biological past as a man, it is still part of history that should be documented, especially since this person has zero risk to safety by it appearing online since they can no longer be found using it. Under your presumptions, we should also remove Caitlyn Jenners birth name as well. Sorry for making such a big deal over this but censoring history due to a false presumption that it will compromise this persons safety is disingenuous at best. If we start removing every bit of information people do not like from their wikipedia profiles... starts us down a real slippery slope.Sawyermade (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In regards to your comment about "censorship", there is no requirement that Wikipedia—a privately hosted website—must include any particular piece of information. Including information in Wikipedia is an opt-out, not an opt-in, process: there has to be an encyclopedic reason for the information to be necessary, such as coverage in reliable secondary sources (as in the case of Jenner). We are particularly cautious about sensitive information about living persons, per WP:BLP, which I believe was first introduced following a narrowly avoided lawsuit in the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident. In the case of Challenor's birth name, the information is: (a) something we can expect the subject to object to; (b) something that has not been covered in reliable secondary sources; (c) something that the article is complete without, as Challenor was not notable under her birth name; and (d) sensitive personal data (many historical documents will use Challenor's former name). If you wish to pursue the matter further then there are a number of avenues you could consider, such as starting an RFC on the article's talk page, but as an oversighter has agreed with me that the information is subject to our OSPOL criteria, you must not include the name or a link to it again without first establishing consensus via such a process. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Baylor
Subject Draft:Pars (Shahnameh). I have a little trouble with English. There is an opportunity to teach English. Defects in the article will definitely be fixed. Thank you Goodarz Irani (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Caroline Lucas criticism
Hi, I have no idea how to add a link - and would love to know if possible, but here is the link from the BBC News website when Lucas was criticised from the International Trade Secretary Liz Truss downwards.

She was criticised for all MP's she invited as they were only females and white.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49321430

Juanpumpchump (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for the message! This link is already in the article, if you go to the relevant words in the article and hover over the symbol . You can look at the source code of the page to see how this is achieved—but as a bare minimum, to cite a reference you can use the code , or for a book you could use  . My issue with your edit is that the given source doesn't verify the usage of the phrase "heavy criticism". It contains some politicians from different parties criticising her, and a couple of people with mixed feedback to Lucas' comments. To use the phrase "heavy criticism", we would need evidence of more widespread coverage with more unilateral condemnation. Our policies on due weight and neutral point of view are relevant here. — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Apologies
Hey. Hope it’s not too annoying to ping you here. Just a note to apologise for badgering you on the Conan AfD nom a few days ago. I was treating the discussion like an ordinary talk page discussion with debate going back and forth, and my recently installed reply-link tool makes it a bit too tempting to respond to people. However, I see that responding a lot in these sort of !vote discussions can irritating and pushy, and also probably counter-productive. It’s a lesson for future discussions, so thanks for calling it out. Take care. Popcornduff (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's okay, glad you understand another perspective on it. I think it's the case with a lot of tech that you have to consciously distance yourself from the natural impulse or you'll spend more and more time on less and less important things. I appreciate the message. :) — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

ASOUE articles
Hello! I have recently been cleaning up Daniel Handler and Lemony Snicket, and while spoiler I haven't read any of his books for quite a while, it strikes me as odd that there are no articles on the main characters (Count Olaf, Klaus Baudelaire, Violet Baudelaire, and Sunny Baudelaire). I feel that there's enough coverage for perhaps a stand-alone article on Olaf and the Baudelaire family. I'd be happy to re-create them with more citations and so that they better meet Wikipedia's guidelines- I'm just asking for a second opinion as I saw that you have been rather involved in editing the articles. (also ping ). What do y'all think?Eddie891 Talk Work 22:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question! You may have seen that I was involved in the deletion of a few character pages a while ago. This was primarily because they were accumulating a lot of fancruft, better suited to the Wikia on this topic. So I'm not opposed to character articles in principle. But I have also looked into things before and struggled to find many secondary sources. I suppose this was before the Netflix adaptation, but for character pages I think we need something a bit more than just reviews of the books/film/TV episodes—there needs to be detailed analysis of the particular character. Given that Count Olaf was portrayed by the big name actors Neil Patrick Harris and Jim Carrey, he might be the easiest one to start with. This article is good and I think there must be lots others like it. I think it's probably there's enough material for the Baudelaires to get their own pages too. I've got all those characters' pages bookmarked, so if you do recreate them then I'll at least give them a read over, and try to improve them if I can. And if you need some book knowledge, I can certainly help with that too. — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I gathered some sources here. Do you think that's enough? Eddie891 Talk Work 15:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't read some of the sources and I don't have enough knowledge to judge if Lexicon is reliable, so I can't comment either way on those. One of the sources isn't really about Olaf—"Will Count Olaf prevail?" in The Spectator is just a review of The End. But the others all look useful and in particular I'd say Vulture, ScreenRant, this NPR one and I suspect the NYT one show notability (whereas interviews aren't secondary sources and an article like this is routine coverage). Looks like a solid base to start writing an article on! — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My thoughts on the matter exactly. Lexicon seems to be published by Gadjah Mada University, a prominent Indonesian university, but I cannot tell if the article is written by a faculty member or student Eddie891 Talk Work 18:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Glycentennial
I saw your review for that page, I discussed that AfD marking with someone and didn't get back to remove the tag before you made your ruling. Sorry for wasting your time. 00:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffsteinman (talk • contribs)
 * Looks like we crossed wires—I just left you a message at your talk page. No harm done and no need to apologise. :) — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding Draft:Sadaharu Yagi
Hi. Thank you for reviewing my edit on Draft:Sadaharu Yagi. I’ve submitted this article twice. I basically fixed the lines and references following the kind advice I got on Teahouse, and also on the user chat of SamHolt 6 who is the editor reviewed the article before you. Basically what I understand after getting advised is the draft got an undisclosed payment issue by somebody in the past, but now the article itself is looking neutrally and objectively written as some editors said on Teahouse. Could you please kindly advice me what part of this draft still needs to be supported by reliable secondary references so that my next submission doesn’t get declined? Thank you! 75.83.94.230 (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * While the text may appear neutral, it's still misleadingly promotional. For instance, it talks about him winning a Latin Grammy. From what I can tell, the winners of that award were "Draco Rosa, artist. George Noriega & Draco Rosa, album producers. Dave Clauss, Héctor Espinosa, Benny Faccone, Seth Atkins Horan, Nelson "Gazu" Jaime, Allan Leschhorn, Fernando Quintana, Fabián Serrano & Sadaharu Yagi, album recording engineers. Benny Faccone, album mixer. Bob Ludwig, album mastering engineer." Not as impressive a claim when you realise it was only a co-win with 14 people, and no longer such a good claim to notability. The draft can still mention the award but it shouldn't say that he won it, instead saying something like He was included as a recipient of the Album of the Year award at the 14th Annual Latin Grammys, won by Draco Rosa's Vida. The decline reason I gave was not showing notability and indeed I'm still failing to see significant coverage of Yagi in independent secondary sources. For instance, interviews like this are good for adding information to an article, but they are not independent so do not contribute towards this. To be quite honest, I suspect that such independent secondary sources do not exist and if they don't then there will be no way that we can host an article about Yagi.  I must ask at this point: how did you come across this draft? The previous editors involved were paid to edit it—is that also the case for you? If it is, you are better off disclosing it now, because we don't ban or delete such contributions, only handle them with care. We do however ban people who fail to disclose such matters. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thank you for the quick reply. First of all, this article was out there and wasn’t a draft when I found it and was thinking to add/edit some lines about Yagi. Soon after, I noticed this article became “draft”, and I was the one who submitted to publish it again as you can see in the edit history. I am still new to Wikipedia but I was even thinking to make an article in Japanese language (which I might do after this English draft gets approved, as long as I don’t need to go through another complicated process like now…) Sadaharu Yagi is simply well known among Latin music producers and engineers, also among Draco Rosa’s fans. Draco Rosa himself is mentioning Yagi’s name on some TV and radio interviews. I am putting a link here so that you can understand the official definition of “ winners” and Sadaharu Yagi is officially certified as “winner”, not just a staff who participated in the winning albums. As the Grammy official rule says, only artists, producers, engineers and certain contributors on the album are considered as officially certified winners in the categories where Yagi is listed. Therefore, what the draft article stating for Yagi’s awards is not exaggerated or misleading the fact. As you said multiple people are the winners on “Album of the year”. However, whether it looks impressive or not, I believe Yagi, being awarded and officially certified as Latin Grammy winner of 2013, is a fact with a neutral point of view, which we all have to respect according to the Wikipedia guidelines I read.  You kindly gave me an example of the link which you considered is not “independent secondary sources” to support the first line, “Sadaharu Yagi is a Japanese-born record producer, mixing engineer, and recording engineer who has won one Grammy and two Latin Grammy Awards.” This line can be supported by the references of the official Grammys/Latin Grammys website which are already used in other sections on the draft. I would like to follow your advice by adding the Grammy website links as references on the first line. Please let me know if there are any other parts I need to change in order to successfully make another submission. Thanks.  P.S. By working on this draft, now I am learning how hard you guys are working to keep Wikipedia a trusted and reliable platform as online encyclopedia. However, I am not a paid worker for this. I apologize for my long response and thank you for your patience. Looking forward to your advice for the re-submission. 75.83.94.230 (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view is a much more stringent requirement than simply saying true things, but also about context and subtext. However, I do see your point and I think in this case you are right—I didn't have the relevant industry knowledge here, so sorry about that. I see you were the admin who blocked /, editors associated with the draft we're talking about (Draft:Sadaharu Yagi). Are there any PAID/SOCK reasons to reject the draft in its current state? — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * At this time, I can see no obvious smoking gun that indicates this IP is related to Ceethekreator. Yunshui 雲 水 07:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright amazing. 75.83.94.230: thanks for your patience and co-operation during this process, and apologies when my lack of knowledge has held things up. I'm accepting the draft into article space. You mentioned creating an article on the Japanese Wikipedia—just thought I should let you know that that's a completely different community with their own set of rules, but I've often found English Wikipedia to be the strictest in terms of policy so you might have a simpler process to navigate there. If you're interested in the music industry, there's always lots of work to be done improving our articles so I hope you decide to stick around! — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much, . I am glad that all the edits I did were fine and are now approved! Also thank you for letting me know how Wikipedia works in other languages. I will definitely keep that in mind and will check the guidelines if I start making a Japanese article! 75.83.94.230 (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Trauma Trigger. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
 * Since there has not been any further discussion since 3/16, I have re-listed this. -Pengortm (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Triple Crown
Hi Bilorv. I do appreciate your help over at Triple Crown, it's really nice to have someone else pitching in. I just thought I'd let you know I've never been decreasing the tally for the Standard Triple Crown if people upgrade their award. So if someone gets the Triple Crown, then upgrades it later, I've been considering them to have both awards. I've reverted your decrease of the standard tally, partially because it will skew things if one of us is decreasing it every time people get promoted and one of us isn't. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ah, I have experienced a little bit of confusion over this. But at the moment, the Standard entry has 208 entries (count the number of "|-" symbols in the code and then subtract two for the table header lines) and I believe most people are not listed in Standard if they upgraded to a higher list, so it looks to me like we're not double counting at present. Perhaps we should set a consistent rule, and for conciseness I would suggest that we list a person only in the highest award they have (plus special categories). Then I don't mind whether the tallies of winners includes all categories above it, or refers to just that category, as long as we're consistent. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there may also be some confusion because some people don't apply for each award. Some people don't know the Triple Crown exists until they've already eligible for several crowns, at which point they'll just nominate themselves for the highest one. There's no doubt many cases of people having the Imperial Triple Crown though not the standard, and there's probably even cases of people having the standard then skipping the Imperial and going straight to Napoleonic etc etc, though on many occasions people have applied both the standard and the Imperial at the same time, in which case I award them both and add them to both tallies.
 * While the counter at the main page may have been decreased, I've never noticed an awardee and their respective articles being removed from the actual list of winners. I think the tally should just count how many people are listed as actual recipients, adjusting it when people get upgraded just seems like unnecessary work and also something that may be difficult to keep track of. It would probably take hours to go through and adjust all the figures based on who has been upgraded to get it accurate right now, and even if we get it accurate now I can see the mistakes being made in the future. If 208 people have won the standard award, can we just keep the figure at 208? That should be easy enough to manage. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * well, in the cases where I've awarded people more-than-standard Triple Crowns, such as this one, I have removed them from any lower lists they were previously in. Indeed there are lots of other entries marked "upgraded from X" in which their lower entries have been removed. If I were hypothetically to volunteer to do all the manual labour myself, would there be a compelling reason why we shouldn't have people only listed at their highest level, and have the tallies be cumulative? It doesn't seem like a feature to me that someone receives a Standard only if they apply for one before being eligible for an Imperial etc., but maybe you think this is intentional. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'd obviously seen the 'upgraded from X' text in the tables, but it never occurred to me that that might mean the people had removed the previous award from the respective tally (and I believe I even added that text myself without removing previous entries), though now that you mention it it does make sense. Well it looks like our records are already seriously out of whack anyway then. I 'adopted' the awards after a extended period of stagnation here, and for several years now I haven't been removing people from an existing table if they accomplish something new. If people did that before me I never noticed; I took over an abandoned ship so I didn't get any instructions. If you or other people have been doing that that's fine, it just means our records are inconsistent and therefore not reliable. To be honest I don't have the time to go through and try and straighten everything out right now, but in answer to your question, no, I don't see any compelling reason to keep people in both tables considering some people have already been removed. I think it would be easier to take out the people who haven't been removed than try and add back all the people who have, so if you want to do that that's fine with me. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is done. I've consistently listed users only at their highest level. I have double checked to make sure that I have not accidentally removed any names entirely, or from any of the extra awards (e.g. Timeless). The tallies on the main TC page are now cumulative, so if you win an Imperial then that counts as a Standard and an Imperial. Let me know if you think anything looks amiss! — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Cheers for putting the effort in. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi again. I've got someone at Triple Crown nominations who has submitted a featured picture, and wants to claim the fact they added the image's caption as 'significantly' contributing to it. If you could weigh in on the discussion that would be appreciated. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Population Zero draft article
Hello. I writing to you regarding my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Population_Zero_(video_game). The sources I included into the article are one of the most trusted gaming outlets in the world: PC Gamer, IGN, MMORPG.com, MassivelyOP. Unfortunately, mass media does not cover video games that thoroughly, so I can't add New York Times and such like. Please, I really need your help and expertise. I am looking forward to your reply. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omeniel (talk • contribs) 17:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi ! I'm not an expert in this subject, but I am familiar with PC Gamer and IGN and I agree that they're reliable sources. I declined the draft initially because I saw you hadn't made any changes in terms of the sources in the article, which the previous reviewer assessed. What we look for in terms of demonstrating notability is substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources, and it looks like such coverage might exist for this game, but it's not there yet. Here's what I see of the article at present: PC Gamer is good coverage; IGN is a video (not generally reliable); MassivelyOP is an interview (not a secondary source); the MMORPG link doesn't take me to a page about Population Zero; Mein-MMO is an interview (not a secondary source); WorthPlaying perhaps contributes towards notability. So there's some useful things (and interviews are useful, even though they don't count towards notability), but there's more to be done. What I would suggest is that adding a "Reception" section with some brief quotes of critical reviews of the game would help show notability very concretely. Have websites such as IGN reviewed the game (as an article)? Critical reviews done by professionals are good and obvious sources of substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources, so with a few of these, the draft may then be ready to become an article. Thanks! — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, ! When I am trying to paste the MMORPG link https://www.mmorpg.com/population-zero/interviews/population-zero-interview-dungeons-survival-world-and-more-2000117294 it changes to the captcha thing. I guess their website works this way. As for the reception, the game is not out yet. It releases on Steam Early Access on May 5th. That's why I put it on 2020 Video Games category. Do you think these guys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games can help me? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omeniel (talk • contribs) 09:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, . That MMORPG link works for me above so if you replaced the URLs in the draft with that one (copy and paste it from here) then it should work. In any case, I see it's an interview, which is a good source but not useful for notability. It may be that the game does not meet notability guidelines. If that's the case, we cannot have an article on it. See Notability. If the game is released next month and gains critical reviews, then it could become notable, and there's no harm in leaving the draft for now or working on it in draftspace until that time. WikiProject Video games, which you point out, may be able to offer some help, yes. And one last point: you can sign your comments by ending them with the code . — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:BLP/Noticeboard regarding WP:NPOV. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Carl Benjamin's rape joke".The discussion is about the topic Carl Benjamin. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Amaroq64 (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your message - RE: ModCloth
So, just so I understand, are you suggesting I type in all changes I am suggesting directly to you (with citations)? Is there a way to review all the stuff that was already removed? Sorry, it seems Wikipedia makes it intentionally difficult to communicate for someone who doesn't code! Oh - I am fine with disclosing I have received compensation from GoGlobal for writing services. To that end, I would like to create a GoGlobal Wiki page. Is that allowed? Or do I need to write it into your talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewbridgeRD (talk • contribs) 18:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for the message. I appreciate that Wikipedia is an obtuse place to navigate for newcomers, particularly in regards to our "wikitext" formatting. You can enable the visual editor for a more what-you-see-is-what-you-get experience. If you have received compensation from GoGlobal then you need to disclose this on your userpage, preferably with either the code  or.
 * It's important that you understand the purpose of Wikipedia includes neutrality as a core principle—in particular, we are not a marketing tool, not a form of advertisement and not a way for your company to host content. I believe you have already been linked the pages Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Conflict of interest and while I'm willing to answer questions to some degree, it is your job to familiarise yourself with the rules.
 * To touch on a couple of points that are applicable to you, you should not edit articles such as ModCloth or GoGlobal directly. You can use the talk pages of relevant articles, such as Talk:ModCloth, to ask for changes that you think would improve the article, beginning your comment with the code request edit. Your request will get a response by a volunteer who independently decides what to change (if anything) about the article in response. Note that we try to base articles off of secondary sources, so it is often not useful to suggest sources or text based on materials created by GoGlobal, ModCloth etc.
 * As for creating articles, you may create a draft through the Articles for Creation process if you believe the topic meets our Notability (organizations and companies) guideline. If it does not then it is not suitable for Wikipedia and no amount of excellent writing will change this. If it does then you will need to provide high-quality references and write a draft conforming to policies and guidelines such as verifiability and neutral point of view. You can then submit the draft and an independent volunteer chooses whether to accept it, or provide a reason for declining it and constructive criticism for how it can be improved (if the topic meets our notability guidelines; if not, then there is no way of getting the draft accepted). Unfortunately, there's no way to tell whether your draft will be accepted in a day or rejected after a three month wait—we've got a bit of a backlog at the moment.
 * Often employers do not know or care about Wikipedia's rules. You should make sure that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's rules as best you can, and abide by them even if this conflicts with guidance you have been given. But of course, Wikipedia is a hard place to navigate so we don't expect you to know everything, and mistakes are allowed. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

This is helpful information, and I will SUGGEST changes in the talk pages. Totally get the ideology around Wiki and not using it as a marketing source. However, it is a source of information for investors and such, and so you want to make the page as correct as possible. There is a fine line between reporting/adding facts and editorializing, so I understand how some suggestions may cause a bit of pull back.NewbridgeRD (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

B S Shivananda Page Rejection
Hi, This is the second editor who is rejecting this page on surprising margins. The IM title is the 2nd most important title in chess. There are already numerous pages on Wikipedia where the said chess player has not even achieved his FM title, and they are not only accepted, but are not struck down by good editors like you.

As I have already stated, B S Shivananda has one GM norm, compared to someone like Abhimanyu Mishra, who has no GM norms. He has won National Level titles 12 times, which is way more than many other chess players. Also, he is a gold medalist at the National Team Chess Championships 2017, which is an official championship conducted by the All India Chess Federation.

My sole reason for creating this page is because he qualifies for it - a gold medal at an accredited National Championship means the player is eligible for a Wikipedia page. Please reconsider your decision.

You also cite newspapars as local correct? Well let me correct you on this - The Hindu and the Times of India are Nationally read news papers of very high reputation. If Wiki allows it, I will cite old newspaper clippings of the said player in articles at a time when the Internet had not yet exploded. All these are from nationally famous pages like Deccan Herald, Times of India, Indian Express, Sportstar etc.

I thank you for your time. Please add your inputs here. Irontigran.


 * hi, and thanks for the message. You can sign talk page comments by ending them with the code . Our policies are sometimes enforced inconsistently because we have relatively few experienced volunteers involved in our new article reviewing to the tens or hundreds of thousands of volunteers interesting in writing articles, so it's rarely a good idea to argue that other pages exist and so this one should.
 * WP:NCHESS contains some guidelines on when chess players are notable; I believe Shivananda does not meet any of these criteria. Thus, Shivananda must meet our Notability (people) guideline in order to have an article. This means demonstrating significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. If such coverage does not exist then Shivananda is not eligible for an article; if it does then it needs to be cited.
 * It is not all newspapers that are local, no. I simply mean that often coverage exists in a newspaper in a player's home town or even home state, but unless there's national and international coverage of them then the coverage is not "significant" by our standards. The Hindu, Times of India etc. are indeed internationally highly-read newspapers so as long as Shivananda is discussed in depth in these articles then these are good sources. Please do go ahead and add any references like this that you can—there's no requirement that they be available on the internet. Note that Shivananda will only be notable if there's a disproportionately high level of coverage in comparison to other IMs. This means that coverage needs to focus on Shivananda's life or particular style or something other than just boilerplate reporting about tournament results. I didn't see any such coverage at the moment in the draft.
 * In the case of Abhimanyu Mishra, it's rather punching down to insult a 12-year-old boy so I'd appreciate it if you apologised for that comment. Mishra is indeed not notable by WP:NCHESS, but the claim to fame of being the current youngest IM is one which has been discussed significantly in reliable sources, thus making Mishra notable by Notability (people). — Bilorv ( talk ) 08:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for the clarification. I have modified my previous post on Mishra as well, and I do apologise if I sounded harsh, however whatever I have stated is the truth, and as a chess player myself I know how hard it is for a 18+ player to improve like Mishra because of the rating constraints. It is good to achieve so much when you are young, but when exceptions are made for such players then why not this? An IM with a GM norm is almost as strong as a GM. Also, I would like to state that a Gold Medal Winner at the National Team Championship is considered a National Champion, there are various newspaper clippings that say he wins gold in nationals, and it is only fair to acknowledge such an achievement.

I would love to cite newspaper clippings from Deccan Herald, TOI, Indian Express etc, so how do I do it?I found atleast 15 such reliable sources, and can find more if necessary. Will publications on websites like Chessbase India also help in this regard?

Again, thank you so much for your clarifications. I will make any changes necessary. Irontigran.
 * thanks for the reply. Exceptions have not been made for Mishra; he meets our Notability (people) standards. Having a Wikipedia article is not a reward, an entitlement or a prestige; it's just a reflection of how much news coverage or reliable recorded knowledge there is about a person. The chess players who are notable may not be the same as the most talented chess players. That's a feature, not a bug. Other websites with information about chess have different goals and so can be more useful to consult for different purposes.
 * You can cite the news clippings just by including the key information, like . Or you can use a citation template like cite news. Anything between   tags that uniquely identifies the source you're citing. Hope that helps! — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

El Camino
Hello, we seemingly have an editor who keeps reverting the plot summary of the El Camino page, a user by the name of Billmckern. I've reached out already on his user page and mentioned that this is in accordance to the edits you have given, but I fear that he is causing an edit war that could cause the page to lose its status as an FAC. Would you or have any advice to deal with this? — Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for the question. I'm not sure I've got any advice beyond simply engaging in discussion, being patient and making sure you're not speaking past each other. Don't let it escalate to an edit war that involved you—the review won't be closed because of 20 words up for debate in a discussion that's actively making progress. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the imput
heres a face for you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebaconhalrguru (talk • contribs) 22:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Decarceration
Thank you for accepting my article on decarceration and for leaving detailed suggestions, each one weighty, on how to improve future articles. I appreciate your helpful feedback, as well as your compliments. I must admit I wrestle with writing something that is interesting enough to read, though neutral in tone, for some Wikipedia articles read like a recitation of facts without context. To achieve a more neutral tone, I deleted some of my contextual frames, which may have resulted in a few sections appearing less relevant. In any event, there is much to learn. Thanks again, MarcyMarcywinograd (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for the kind words, they're very good to hear. :) By the way, you can sign talk page comments with  and you somehow left your comments in the middle of this page rather than the bottom. It's nice to hear the feedback is helpful and thanks again for all of your edits! — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Bilrov, for reading, responding and accepting in such a timely manner. I appreciate your feedback and will review the MOS and other notes. Stay safe and be well, MarcyMarcywinograd (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Bilorv, thanks again for approving my article "Decarceration in the United States." Question: Currently, if someone googles "decarceration" the redirect is set to Wikipedia's page "criminal justice reform in the United States." I would like to change that redirect so that it goes to my article on decarceration. Can I over-ride that initial redirect to criminal justice reform? I want to be careful here and not step on any toes. I looked into removing that redirect, but it would not allow me to actually change the redirect to my article--so I didn't remove the original redirect to "criminal justice reform." What do you suggest I do? (Before all this, when I was learning about redirects, I redirected my "Decarceration in the United States" article to "Decarceration"--so now I'm dizzy! Thanks for any guidance you can offer here. Best wishes and stay safe, MarcyMarcywinograd (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, not quite sure what happened with your comments but I've moved them to the correct section. I think there's a couple of things going on here, and I'll explain them all even though you might understand some of it already, and though some bits may not have been what you were trying to ask. Internally, Wikipedia has redirects which mean that if you type, say, bagels into the search bar in the top right then you get taken to the page bagel, because that's the page you're looking for. You should also (on desktop, might be a little different on mobile) see a small piece of text  below the title. Click that link and you'll be taken to a redirect page. Look at the page in the edit window and you'll see that   is the code that makes the page a redirect to Bagel.
 * In the case of decarceration, it might have been a little more confusing as the redirect took you to a section within the page you mention. You can still find a link to the redirect at the top of the page. The code to redirect to a section is, in this case,  I've just changed the target of the the redirect to Decarceration in the United States, as it's an article wholly about decarceration, an improvement over the previously linked article which used to be partially about it.
 * As for Google or other external search engines, they choose what you see and we don't control it. Sometimes Google takes stuff from Wikipedia and displays it in the actual search page. If Google looks at our redirect pages—maybe it does—then this redirect change might lead to a change in Google's results in a few days. But Google has results highly tailored to the individual—for me, no Wikipedia page is on the first page of the list—and if it's showing you a Wikipedia page as a normal search result then that's due to a mixture of pageviews, its perceived information about your education level, political beliefs, personality etc. and it's something we don't control. Interestingly, even though Criminal justice reform in the United States is a more established and more viewed page, when I search "decarceration" on DuckDuckGo (search engine that doesn't store information about you) I get Decarceration in the United States as the first result from Wikipedia, at the top of page 2.
 * As another thing, I'll leave you with this link (which you can see for a page by clicking "View history" > "Pageviews") to show that the decarceration article is being seen. — Bilorv ( talk ) 08:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Bilrov, for your feedback and intervention on the dizzying decarceration redirect. I appreciate your timely response and support. MarcyMarcywinograd (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Bilrov, I'm trying to figure out why my page "Decarceration in the United States" is not showing up in a Google search. Any thoughts on what I can do to make it show up? Thank you, MarcyMarcywinograd (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I addressed this in my comment above—what Google shows you is not necessarily the same as what it shows other users, and it's not in Wikipedia's control. — Bilorv (  Black Lives Matter  ) 17:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Proquest
Hi Bilorv, I've been working on improving the articles on my userpage and specifically the overlooked death of Leonard Deadwyler. I found the Los Angeles Sentinel has some better stories on the case and I saw that you have ProQuest access, which appears to be the only way to access these historic articles at this time (per their archive page.) I was wondering if you could help me by sending me a few of the articles? I have a date for two of them, one is specifically the coverage page where Johnny Cochran won the first ever settlement for the victim of police brutality family in history and the other is for Deadwyler. LA Sentinel appears to be one of the only papers that really covered the killing of this teenage boy as well. Anyway, I know this is a big ask, so no sweat if you're unable to help! Thanks, Praxidicae (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I should add I also have access to Newspapers.com (and newspapersarchive) but they don't have this specific paper, unfortunately. Praxidicae (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for the question! I'm a bit busy over the next few days but I'll look into this as soon as I can, hopefully within a week. At a first glance it does look like I might have access to some relevant LA Sentinel articles—what are the two dates you came across specifically? — Bilorv (  Black Lives Matter  ) 19:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * was able to help me. Thank you for responding though! Praxidicae (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

fyi
PLS SEE Village pump (proposals).-- Moxy 🍁 11:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Shilpa Shetty filmography
Hi mate, thanks for your valuable comments on the list. Though I have tried my best to solve all issues highlighted, there few doubts. I have left my comments. Please help me understanding those points. Much thanks.-- 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 13:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello mate. I have responded.-- 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 16:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * can you please ensure that you submit these comments in the correct place? You have been leaving these comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Black Lives Matter. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your valuable time on the list. Since the list had garnered three support ideally it shall get promoted to FL. What needs to be done from my end in order to get FL.-- 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 13:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nominations are closed when appropriate by an FL director or delegate. You can contact an FL director as listed at the top of WP:FLC (Giants2008, PresN, The Rambling Man) for more information. — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you mate.-- 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 13:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Request for FAC help
Hello again! I hope you are doing well and staying safe with everything going on in the world right now. I have recently bought Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic and spent an entire day playing it, even though I should have been far more adult with my time lol. Anyway, I was wondering if you could possibly help with my current FAC. I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest, but I just wanted to reach out and ask. I hope you are having a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for the message. All things considered, I've been doing quite well and staying busy enough. I'll see if I can look at the FAC. — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response, and I am glad you are doing well. The only thing we can really do is keep trying our best while also staying careful. Aoba47 (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My FAC was actually just promoted. I should have waited a day before reaching out to you, but I'm still glad to have talked with you. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * haha, no problem. Congrats on the promotion! — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

GirlsDoPorn
Hello Bilorv. I wanted to give a personal congratulations on maintaining neutrality on this page after all it went through. It's almost GA-worthy now, and remember that the nomination is on hold until July 14th. That should be plenty of time to go through my final comments. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Requesting some help
Hi,

Recently initiated a new Draft:Sexual politics and looking for proactive help in updating and expanding the article. Please do see if contributing to Draft:Sexual politics would interest you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Toilet paper
Always good to replace that source, but it did seem somehow fitting that it was used on that particular article... Girth Summit  (blether) 09:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * very good, hadn't noticed the irony to it. :) — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

MGTOW Edit
What kind of sources are required to edit the article. The proper reliable source was given for this edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Men_Going_Their_Own_Way&oldid=prev&diff=968449848 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winchetan (talk • contribs) 13:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

What is wrong with this source ?


 * Hi . Please do not edit war when you do not understand why your edit was undone. The article mostly uses (non-self-published) book sources and peer-reviewed journal sources, with some other specialist expert sourcing (e.g. SPLC). These are substantially more reliable than news articles. Note also that even if the sources were sufficient, the lead should not contain information not mentioned in the body; new information should be introduced in the body. Pinging, who also reverted your edits. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello Winchetan. Part of the issue with your edits, besides the lower-quality sources, is that you are using sourcing that makes no mention of MGTOW to make claims about MGTOW. We describe that as synthesis here on Wikipedia, and it is not allowed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello Bilorv The definition of the Men Going Their Own Way cannot be referenced from the book the said book is published around 2017 whereas this work has been published around 2016. Which does not cite MGTOW as Misogynist. Kindly inform if this work can be used to edit and cite the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winchetan (talk • contribs) 15:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not clear on what you're asking but the JSTOR book is indeed reliable, whereas I do not know the provenance of the thesis you've given—generally, undergraduate or Master's theses are not reliable. There are multiple sources for the description of misogyny in the current version of Men Going Their Own Way. We don't base content on the first or the most recent source that exists, but on the overall view of a combination of high-quality reliable sources. You can sign your posts by ending them with . — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello GorillaWarfare Izno Kindly guide if this work can be used to edit the definition of the MGTOW article. Have a look at the above given thread as well. As per the given work MGTOW is not stated as Misogynist . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winchetan (talk • contribs) 16:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , your pings don't work unless you sign your comments as explained above, so and  were not notified by your comment but will be by mine. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping, Bilorv. this might be a better conversation to have at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way, so others interested in editing the article can give feedback. Either way, no, that thesis by Mary Lilly is not usable. As Bilorv already said above, generally we do not consider theses such as that to be reliable sources. The "Antifeminism Online" chapter in Digital Environments: Ethnographic Perspectives Across Global Online and Offline Spaces is a usable source, and indeed it is already used in the article, but its weight must be considered carefully. I discussed this yesterday in a conversation with another editor that you may be interested in joining: my comments about the reliability of the Lin source are, and the full discussion is at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way. You might want to take a look at the other sourcing currently used in the article for examples of the kinds of sources we'd be looking for. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Answer
To answer the question you posed about process, look at the comments made here. I have no real desire to have a known edit warrior start one all over again. --evrik (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Review request
Can you please review Draft:Kerala Police Cyberdome. I'm official representative of law enforcement agency Kerala Police Cyberdome. Thank you RoboShutter (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, this gives you a conflict of interest and means you need to comply with WP:PAID. Wikipedia is not a platform for organisations to advertise. Your writing will continue to stay outside of the mainspace so long as it is written to give false credence to the organisation. I welcome comments from everyone—out of interest, what led you to message me rather than another volunteer?—but I notice you are trying to ask the other parent here. Pinging though they might be aware of this conversation already. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Bilorv, they have been blocked for sockpuppetry. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 17:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess there's something ironic about blocking a law enforcement worker. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Ryan-Mark Parsons
Hello again, you said if I had any questions about the article you may be able to help. As you mentioned, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and I'm learning everyday. You can see that the page has been protected several times to prevent vandalism and very recently a confirmed user blanked the page and redirected, despite the consensus and agreement that the page should stay and previous redirects have been reversed by veteran Wikipedia users. There was one user who previously restored the page, this user has since been blocked, but there appears to be a suggestion that this could have something to do with the article. This really doesn't make sense. I'm learning and I'm using this subject as my first project and wanted to achieve C-Class before moving onto to creating or editing other pages. I hope you can help guide me on what to do or perhaps I need further protection on the page? JPA24 (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi ! I hope you don't mind but I've moved your comment to my talk page, as I think it's a better place for this discussion (closed GA reviews are considered "archived" and not generally added to). I believe that the situation is as follows: redirected Ryan-Mark Parsons because they noticed that an editor who was breaking our sockpuppet rules at the time,, "recreated" the article from redirect status in this edit. Perhaps they didn't realise that the page had only been redirected 18 minutes before by an unregistered user who was acting in contravention to a recent deletion discussion. The best thing to do in this situation is not to revert the edit as "Disruptive editing" but to make contact with the editor in case they know something you don't. My mention of them in this comment should be enough to draw Atlantic306 to the discussion, where hopefully we can get to the bottom of this.  I have to say, JPA24, that it will become relevant that you've made only one edit not directly related to Ryan-Mark Parsons, this one. If you have any connection whatsoever with Ryan-Mark Parsons or you have alternate accounts on Wikipedia (or sometimes edit without logging in) then it is in your best interest to disclose it immediately. If you don't have any connection then you have nothing to fear, but if you do then no innocent act will cover it up. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, apologies as I should have checked the page history more closely. The reason I reverted was because the redirect was reversed by a sockpuppet of a suspected undisclosed paid editor and sockpuppets are not permitted to make large edits and there was also the possibility that he had been paid to watch the article. No objection to you reverting my edit and I have no wish to delete the article, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the comprehensive reply. More than happy to carry on the discussion here, I didn't really know that GA review pages are archived. There have been many examples of disruptive editing to the page, as the subject is controversial this is expected. Likewise, there have been several editors, some of which are seasoned Wikipedia editors, who have restored the page after redirects that contravenes deletion discussion. The revert I made recently was in accordance to what these veteran editors have done before when an IP or confirmed user has blanked page etc. As you know, I'm keen to learn and I'm always reading Wikipedia literature.

To make it clear. I have no relation to the subject, as I've spoken before on this matter when COI was raised and subsequently dismissed, I'm only interested in The Apprentice and notable candidates from the show. The consensus to keep the article also forms my motive to create the article. Thanks so much for the continued support. When I'm more confident and have achieved the next milestone in my first article, I would look to expand my work across Wikipedia. JPA24 (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

- thank you for explaining. I'm new to Wikipedia, so when I first saw the edit I was shocked, as I thought there was some implication that I have a relationship with this blocked editor who reversed the redirect. There are various editors on the page and quite frankly, I have no idea who anyone is! Great to speak to you though. JPA24 (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Bandersnatch
I noticed you are the one responsible for Black Mirror: Bandersnatch becoming a good article. I have started a draft at User:Bait30/Chooseco v. Netflix and was wondering if you would be interested in forking out the "Netflix and interactive fiction" and/or the "Lawsuit" section as per WP:RELART.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 18:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the question . I do think all of the "Netflix and interactive fiction" is necessary for the Bandersnatch article because the first paragraph is a quite quick summary of what Bandersnatch was based on and what was based on it, the second all Bandersnatch-specific discussion and the lawsuit paragraph a significant focus of the topic (and maybe a more significant one if the lawsuit progresses further). The layout of the article is quite something so perhaps there's better ways of integrating the content but I do think it's all there for a reason.
 * However, I can also see the merit in a Chooseco v. Netflix article (and it'd be fine to duplicate Bandersnatch content there). I think perhaps it's too early in the lawsuit's progress for the topic to be notable, which wouldn't prevent progress being made on a draft, but this is very much not my area so perhaps WikiProject Law could be of help here. I would be interested in working on the topic if we decide that it is notable or likely to be notable when the case concludes. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

TFL notification
Hi, Bilorv. I'm just posting to let you know that List of awards and nominations received by Community – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for September 18. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

A pizza for you!

 * Let's roll for it. Starting on my left with one: your number comes up, you go. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

My Article
Hello Bilorv, how are you ?, I received your notification about my article that you refused, do you need the sources used by Ausubel? tell me how can i improve the article to be accepted, thanks (Klotes (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC))
 * Hi, have you read my feedback:
 * Per WP:SAL, lists should be based on clear and non-arbitrary criteria. The choice of what counts as an "empire" and what is "largest" is slightly arbitrary, as discussed in the article, and we would need a consensus in the field that this is a good choice, rather than the studies of one group. We would need secondary coverage of Ausubel et al.'s studies to have such a list, or the criteria are not well-defined enough.
 * Which parts do you have further questions about? — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, you were very clear, but I needed help to improve the content, a question what did you mean by "secondary coverage of Ausubel et al.'s studies" how can I do this, putting the "source" they used? (Klotes (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)) Before making this list, I did a study by Jesse H. Ausubel and his studies are very good and supported by several people and entities. He studied not only empires, but several studies related to the humanities. "From 1989 to 1993, he served as director of studies for the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, which aimed to improve the use of scientific experience in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the US government, as well as in international organizations. Mr. Ausubel was the main organizer of the first UN World Climate Conference (Geneva, 1979), which raised the issue of global warming substantially on the scientific and political agendas." I thought he had excellent studies so I made this list. (Klotes (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC))
 * Hi . I'm not an expert in history so there are perhaps other Wikipedians who would have more nuanced ideas, but in general on Wikipedia a topic is only notable if it has garnered significant attention in its field (for films, in news&magazines; for academics, in journals and peer reviewed literature etc.). Lists are slightly different because we take (usually) notable topics and aggregate them in a particular way, and that particular way of aggregation needs to be clear and straightforward or demonstrably important. I'm sure Ausubel's studies are reliable and so they could likely be used as good sources in other articles, but he alone shouldn't be the decider of what the largest empires are. Secondary source coverage could be based on citation count, on inclusion in meta-analyses or discussion in other studies, or any other coverage by a subject expert person or organisation that is financially independent from Ausubel and any organisation that provided funding.
 * It may be that I'm asking an impossible task of you because such coverage (in significant quantities) does not exist, in which case the list just isn't suitable for Wikipedia—I think this surprises a lot of people, but we don't aim to include all the information that exists, only topics which meet our inclusion criteria. In that case, maybe you can find an existing article which would benefit from a sentence or two about Ausubel's findings. But it may be that Ausubel's work has garnered a lot of academic discussion, or that other academics have independently reached similar conclusions about the largest empires, and that these different approaches in aggregation are suitable for the basis of a list.
 * If you want a second opinion, the Teahouse might be your best bet. But I'm happy to clarify further anything that I've said. Hope this is helpful! — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm happy for your clarification too, yes controversies always exist, in all the contents that is why the wikipedia is good because there are several contents related to the same theme, even for people to have several visions on the subject. I am sure that I will also find a solution for the content. I will try to follow your advice. have a nice day and thank you for your help. (Klotes (talk) 22:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC))

Hello friend, I went to search more about the content about what you asked for. I discovered in addition to the project being his, it is also a joint project with International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and Rockefeller University. they even wrote an academic manual that was the one I mentioned on the page. link: https://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/empires_booklet.pdf In other words, it is a project that involves, human sciences, history and statistical analysis ... Jesse H. Ausubel besides the project being his, he is also a reviewer for several international projects and and the other entities. I also found another influential person who made a diagnosis of his work and evaluates positively. link: https://phe.rockefeller.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/KormosBuchwaldAusubel.pdf in addition to these various projects, including empires, he is also a scientist and the journal the The New York Times even mentioned him in some discoveries he made https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/science/26ausubel.html Thanks to your criticisms and advice, I was able to expand the article better :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_10_largest_empires_in_the_world_history

(Klotes (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC))
 * Hi . I noticed you copied some sentences from the article Jesse H. Ausubel—you should look at Copying within Wikipedia to see the steps you need to take (in general) to copy content around Wikipedia. However, in this case I'm not sure that the content is appropriate to copy because it's not relevant to the topic of "largest empires", and Wikipedia is not a reliable source either (and the quoted content lacked secondary sources). I'm not sure I can see the improvements in the draft because it does not cite any additional reliable sources as references, still just Ausubel. All I can see from your new comments is that Ausubel is a professional academic—yes, that's what makes him a single reliable source. But it doesn't address my comments that multiple reliable sources from distinct provenances are needed as the basis of an article or list in Wikipedia.
 * Just a word on talk page etiquette—thanks for signing your posts, but it's good not to alter them after writing them (except perhaps to fix typos within a few minutes of writing the post). Otherwise someone could be in the middle of replying to you only to find out that you've now said something different. If it's important enough that you need to say it then you can write another comment and sign it separately; otherwise, just leave it be. I think you're also making a common mistake with spacing: you need two line breaks to make a new paragraph, not one (look at the difference between the wikitext in the "Edit" window and how it is rendered on the page). — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the availability and your advice, you are right I know that wikipedia prefers content expanded by the editors themselves instead of copying some text, moreover I also do not know if it is relevant to the article, but it can be trusted by those who read it it may be, but I will try to improve the text in order to simplify and expand it, and I will also add secondary sources in the article. I want to have the article within the rules of wikipedia, you are the ones who rule here and I respect it, you can be sure, that as while as the article does not be according with what you said, I will not send the article for review. I am also demanding and I want to make the best possible. Thanks. (Klotes (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)) I would like also to ask you a simple question, I also noticed that there are some different lists here about empires in wikipedia, do you advise me to use some secondary sources that are on those lists to complete some empires? or would you prefer a different studies to complete? thanks, (Klotes (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC))
 * Hi . Looking more detail at the lists that already exist (which I should have done earlier), it looks like List of largest empires has substantial overlap with what we want to accomplish in this draft list. It's not going to be the case that we will hold two separate articles on "largest empires" and the "10 largest empires", so the work you've done here (primarily in reading Ausubel's sources) can likely be used to improve List of largest empires directly, rather than re-inventing the wheel. Notice they currently say: "Where estimates vary, entries are sorted by the lowest estimate." So maybe Ausubel has data that can be used to improve the list, or maybe there is information from the Ausubel source that can be rewritten in our own words as prose for the list. I would recommend that you make suggestions first on Talk:List of largest empires, and discuss it with any editors who reply; if there are no objections within a few days, then you could try making improvements directly.
 * Just to reply a bit more directly to a couple of your comments: reliable sources should be used in as many articles/lists as they are relevant; and copying Wikipedia text is not legally permissible unless it satisfies the conditions in Copying within Wikipedia, and then it is only editorially appropriate if the copied content is high-quality information accompanied by inline citations. Thanks! — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bilorv, yes I agree with what your said, thanks it's a great idea, but from what I read they use another author and another theory, and the list also all based on a single author. I don't know if it will be easy add more other author. Because that would go against the theory that they use from another author. (Klotes (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC))
 * this relates to what I said about Wikipedia articles/lists being made from an aggregation of sources. Wikipedia is a collaborative work and nobody "owns" or controls any article. Rather than a series of unrelated essays on what can be considered the largest empires, we would want to aggregate all mainstream scholarly view and present it as clearly and simply as possible. — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

That's good, as you know I'm a new editor here, and of course, I also saw that the page is protected and only registered editors and administrators can make changes there. What if the source is rejected by the editors on the list? As we can insert this reliable source into the article?

(Klotes (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC))

Yes I really agree, in simplify the list using several sources including the sources that are there, and this source that I found is also reliable. I know a lot about history and I am interested in the subject and studied, although it is not my area in the moment, I am an instrument musician and I am a DJ and Producer, i already had in several places in the world, and i win several international prizes in Beatport as a Music Producer and in festival Tomorrowland in Belgium as a DJ and i also have some friends place england some who work with Armind Van Buuren in the netherlands, people created articles about my work on google, one day i will write an article about my work here at wikipedia that would be interesting, if you want to know my artist name i will also tell you, now that i have more free time due to the situation of covid 19 in the world, i recently created my account at wikipedia and started to get interested in the subject, i am portuguese and saw the list of empires made by portuguese wikipedia, and i saw that they also used this reliable source from Jesse H. Ausubel for some empires, so I saw that it was also reliable, and I decided make the list of 10 empires, it would be great made a simplified list and used that source for some empires.

(Klotes (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC))

Before making this list, I tried to make an edit request using the source of Jesse H. Ausubel on the List of largest empires page to change the Portuguese empire there, which I noticed that information about the portuguese empire are not correct, automatically someone withdrew my order, I went to investigate today on the Talk: List of largest empires and found several requests, disputes even from experienced editors and apparently they could not change the Portuguese empire on the list, there is always a great opposition, e all other empires change, but the portuguese empire they do not want to change even with reliable sources, I may be wrong, but it seems to me that there is there something wrong.

(Klotes (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC))
 * (1) Disagreements on Wikipedia are resolved through discussion. As I have said, we do not have multiple articles with conflicting points of view. If there are multiple mainstream conflicting points of view then we report all views. If there is consensus that the Portuguese empire in List of largest empires is correct then you are not allowed to override this consensus by writing "your own" list. To do so would be to implicitly claim that your opinion is more important than the rest of the community's. The correct thing to do is to argue your case as strongly as possible on Talk:List of largest empires and if there is consensus not to implement your suggested changes then accept that and move on.
 * (2) Which account did you use to make an edit request on List of largest empires? If you know how to do so, can you point me to the specific edit where you made the request?
 * (3) I'm glad you are enjoying your music career—it sounds very interesting. You say that: one day i will write an article about my work here at wikipedia that would be interesting. If you are notable by Wikipedia's standards then someone may create an article about you, but you are advised not to write such an article yourself because you have a conflict of interest, which makes it hard to maintain the neutral point of view needed for Wikipedia. You would have to go through the AfC process if you did this, and make very clear conflict of interest disclosures so that the reviewer understood you were writing about yourself. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Many Thanks, Yes I know it's collaborative but from what I see there on the talk page, only one user does not agree. in my opinion, a dispute solution should be found, or if an colaborative agreement, I only see a user there just solving the content, I confess that it is a bit annoying because I know that the information is not correct, for this should be decided by more people. It is being a controversial situation even on social networks. The editing request I made was with my account, this account we are talking about. But I verified now that I didn’t do it correctly, I didn’t sign, only the number appears there.

(Klotes (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC))
 * You can content issues to, for instance, the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard if you feel like there is not a wide enough set of voices at an article talk page. You will be turned away, however, if you cannot demonstrate good faith attempts to engage in collaboration. One rejected edit request is far too little of an attempt at discussion for escalation. I can't see the edit request you made—can you link it or quote it to me? — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. Yes, of course: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_largest_empires&oldid=981471644 I think I’ll need to talk on the talk page first, and last case, is I’ll resort to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

(Klotes (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC))

In that order you can see that instead of logging into my account, I entered with my pc ip, I was wrong, maybe it was why they took it out automatically. But ok, friend, the list I made is good, I still need more sources, but as you can see the empires that I put on the list, the entry is the maximum value, because it sees an empire as a whole, and does not divide it into parts, it is the empires in their maximum extent as you can see there the British Empire and other empires are much bigger than in the existing list, and then the list is different beyond theory and study and the list is called "List of 10 largest empires in the world history " in other words, one would stay with the entry with minimum values ​​and the other with the entry with maximum values ​​and sees an empire as a whole, in addition to having only 10 empires.

(Klotes (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC))
 * I'm afraid I have dedicated as much time to this discussion as I can afford, given that I am not a subject expert. Your comment is placed on the wrong page—you should be having this discussion at Talk:List of largest empires. If you reply further on my talk page, regrettably, I will not have the time to respond to you. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

ok friend thanks for the time you spent here I just have to thank you, A big hug for you friend.

(Klotes (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC))
 * I have blocked Klotes as a sockpuppet of Mark Boron after . Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 19:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work ; I kind of expected sock behaviour towards the end of this conversation but I could have maybe seen the signs earlier. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)