User talk:Bilorv/Archive 6

This archive is updated manually by .

Archive created 15:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Raging Fire (film)
Hey! Just a heads up, you declined the submission of Draft:Raging Fire (film) for article creation. It looks like the creator of the article went ahead and copy-pasted created the article in the main space anyways at Raging Fire (film). I've already put it up for deletion and left a message on their talk page, but wanted to let you know in case they follow up with you. BOVINEBOY 2008 09:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for the heads up and thanks for your edits relating to this topic. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:List of Digimon Adventure (2020 TV series) characters
Hello, I read the comment, but I must admit I need help, please. Thank you. Fico Puricelli (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi and thank you for the message. Wikipedia uses a set of characteristics which we call "notability" to decide whether a topic is suitable for an article. The simplest case would be in the case of a TV series, where there need to be significant coverage of the show in newspapers, magazines etc.—other secondary sources (those not produced by people involved in the creation of the TV series). Subtopics are trickier to characterise—for example, a TV series being notable does not mean that every episode should have a standalone page. In the case of a page about characters, there should be enough reliable sources that mean the information could not reasonably be contained on a single page about the TV series. For instance, a character who appears in two or three episodes of a long-running show is not significant for Wikipedia's purposes unless a lot of reviewers have commented on them.
 * In the case of Digimon Adventure, I see that your draft lists a lot of antagonists and minor characters, but Wikipedia does not aim to be an aggregator of information about fiction. We just aim to record what has been discussed in substantial media criticism. So if there are lots of national reviewers who commented on (e.g.) Spadamon then the character needs to be mentioned, but otherwise the information isn't suitable for Wikipedia.
 * In contrast, Wikia (or "Fandom" is another name for the site) does aim to be (in part) an aggregator of information about fiction and so you could contribute character information to the Digimon Wiki, or start your own wiki on the site for Digimon Adventure specifically.
 * Let me know if this clears up your confusion, and if it doesn't then try to be as specific as possible about which parts you do not understand. Thanks! — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Heads up
Just a heads up, I have withdrawn the third nomination for Where's My Mind Tour and Blood Harmony. Also asked the reviewers to fail "I Lost a Friend" and Live at Third Man Records (Billie Eilish album) just so there are no more problems with you and potentially other editors. I admit, I am very young, but I am not a child. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi and thank you for the message. I believe you have misunderstood the purposes of my communications. The issue that I wanted to point out is your actions on Where's My Mind Tour which ignored the feedback from two reviewers (one of which is me). Your re-nominations go against our collaborative process on Wikipedia. You used the terms "fight" and "beef" in other edits, but there is a difference between argument and constructive criticism or polite disagreement. Wikipedia editors must work together when they disagree, which is a normal part of the editing process. I have not asked you to withdraw any other nominations and so these actions are your decision, but not something I wanted you to do. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

What I thought is that you would bring up all my nominations to GA reassessment and have them revoked, even after wasting countless hours bringing stubs up to higher quality. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no plan to do this. Nonetheless, it is never a waste of time to improve articles—our articles serve our readers better when they are improved, regardless of our internal quality ratings. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yes, its disappointing to search up a thing you like only for there to be a paragraph worth of content. That's why we do what we do. If all we do is update articles about Final fantasy for the 4,000th time, then what about that one guy that wants to look up Ailinzebina? Le Panini  [🥪] 06:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

==Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Move good/featured article topicons next to article name== You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Move good/featured article topicons next to article name. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on it, given your comments in the other discussion below on the extent to which readers notice the icons. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 01:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you for the message! I am interested in this topic and have left a comment there. Also happened to take a look at the whole VPP page and left a comment about the suggested article sweep, which I notice you also proposed. — Bilorv ( talk ) 02:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Piers Corbyn
There is already a subsection of conspiracy theories. But... it is not his given or professional designation. Remove it and libk as well. Stephenfryfan (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You will need to discuss this matter on Talk:Piers Corbyn if you wish to create a new consensus, given that recent consensus has been established to describe Piers Corbyn as a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence of the article. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy Tube
Hi Bilorv!

You recently undid an edit to Philosophy Tube I made. Originally the summary of the article stated that the channel explores philosophy from a "left-wing perspective." I edited the article to remove that point. The point was a repetition of an opinion from one journalist in an editorial perspective, which was cited in the article's body. I disagree that articles should repeat opinions as uncited statements in their summaries. By this logic any opinion published on any media channel of any political persuasion can be repeated as though it were fact, out of context, in the most widely-read parts of articles. For example, one could edit the article about the company Uber and cite in the body that Katie Hopkins in the Daily Mail believes that Uber is less safe than taxis according to her column (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4911364/London-safer-without-Uber-writes-Katie-Hopkins.html), then repeat this in the article's summary that "Uber rides are less safe than taxis." Or one could edit the article about the 2017 Catalan independence referendum and cite in the body that Hopkins in the Daily Mail wrote that there was "the suggested involvement of Soros" in the debate (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4939154/KATIE-HOPKINS-Sickening-sight-police-beating-Catalans.html), then cite that in the article's summary as "George Soros was suggested to be involved in the debate."

Keen for your thoughts. 217.116.228.10 (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi! One could do neither of the things you give as examples for a few reasons: the Daily Mail is not a reliable source (see WP:RSP) and the information would not be due weight because there would be other sources which do not agree with the given assertions. You are correct that another reason is that opinion pieces are not treated as fact, but in let's stick to the Philosophy Tube case. In this case, the "left-wing" attribute is based on characterisation in the most professional, detailed, high-quality review of the subject that I know of—the article is about a work of art (the YouTube videos) rather than a company or collection of factual statements and so in this case, the interpretation of the art by professional critics becomes different to an opinion piece, rather being an important facet of the work to comment on.
 * Since you dispute the information (I didn't know who would really dispute that Thorn is left-wing—himself, fans and opponents all widely characterise him as such) I can provide additional sources:
 * ... made modest stars out of leftists like Natalie Wynn, a YouTube personality known as ContraPoints, and Oliver Thorn, a British commentator known as PhilosophyTube New York Times
 * Thorn is part of a contingent of YouTubers often referred to as “LeftTube” Regeneration Mag
 * With his YouTube channel "Philosophy Tube" he is one of a generation of new influencers who are turning to left-wing issues. In an entertaining way, with partly elaborately produced videos (machine translated) Deutsche Welle
 * etc. etc. etc.
 * You can find all of these sources in the article already, which is why the lead would be incomplete without the characterisation of the content as left-wing (since the channel began to change style in 2018). Let me know if this addresses your query, or if you have any other questions about Wikipedia. Thanks! — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Bilorv!
 * Thanks for responding. Just to clarify: I don't _at all_ dispute the characterisation of Thorn that he holds opinions that are commonly opined to be "left-wing." Nevertheless, I remain troubled by its repetition as _fact_ on Wikipedia.
 * I'd be much more satisfied if the article simply said "many sources have characterised Thorn as holding a "left-wing" perspective. Perhaps I should have just edited it to that. :) How do you feel about that edit?
 * Here's my trouble with repeating "left-wing" as fact instead of opinion, regardless of the perceived merit of that opinion. "Left-wing" is inherently a subjective characterisation, and a relative one: I think it's reasonable to say that George H. W. Bush was more left-wing than, say, Joseph McCarthy. If something or someone is "left-wing" in general, it is only "left-wing" in relation to the average perceived political position of popular discourse (an example model of which: the 'Overton window'), which is ever-shifting on the "left-right" spectrum. That shifting nature of acceptability somewhat undermines whatever merit we assign to people's opinions. The present policy that highly-ranked opinion can be passed as fact implies that Wikipedia can be a mouthpiece that turns opinions into facts when they're biased by the current political centre. I respectfully disagree with this. Wikipedia supposed to repeat facts.
 * "Left-wing" is also a characterisation that carries a lot of political weight, with the potential to cause readers to discredit Thorn before having engaged with his points. In other words, by itself it doesn't actually mean anything (as stated above), but will still cause some readers to form a bias towards or against whatever is called "left-wing." Thorn has often tried in his videos to "stay neutral," merely discussing topics based on their logical consistency, but nevertheless often results in a position that has been commonly associated with the "left-wing" (there's a good video of his on the free market economics of the video game industry that serves as an example). I'm not saying I don't think it's not fair that Thorn's opinions can be called "left-wing." I just don't think anyone ought to claim that on Wikipedia as "Thorn is left-wing," but instead "Source X claims Thorn is left-wing."
 * I'm also unsure about the characterisation of his YouTube videos as "art." Philosophy Tube is comparable to a dramatised and filmed newspaper column: both consist of one person discussing a topic while attempting to entertain with the discussion. While that certainly necessitates artistic endeavours in the case of Philosophy Tube, is the work itself really subject to the characterisation "art"? Unless newspaper columns are also treated as art, in which case, fair enough.
 * Thanks for discussing! 217.116.228.10 (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for the polite discussion. I understand your perspective, but I'm afraid "many sources have characterised ..." is not really how we do things on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not based on "fact" or "truth", but on a particular body of secondary and occasionally primary source literature. To that end, we have lots of bespoke notions like "verifiability" and "reliable sources" and "notability" which are much more specific than the common English words or phrases, but summarise our approach to building an encyclopedia—a tertiary source with no original thought. I understand that this is strange news to even most long-term readers, and I think we have made many failings in educating the public as to our purpose, so that they can engage in proper critical thinking and media literacy when reading our website.
 * But anyway, this is what we are, and as such we do not need something to be "true", but "verifiable"—that is, if reliable sources have consensus in an idea then we repeat that idea, and otherwise we don't (we report mixed perspectives if we find them in RSes). When we say "X is true", it should always be implicit that we are really saying "The body of sources we regard as reliable have, overall, assessed X as 'true'". Readers should look at the sources of an article to find out what we are regarding as reliable (and can maybe even infer what we regard as unreliable).
 * No doubt the founding ideas of Wikipedia would make an interesting topic for a Philosophy Tube video, but I'll recommend you one that does exist for the question of whether his work is art: "YouTube: Art or Reality?" I'm not a world expert, but I believe Thorn characterises his work as "art". Reliable sources also discuss its aesthetics, message, filming style etc. in the way that other audiovisual works of art are analysed. Nonetheless, for our purposes it's some sort of media, rather than a base object or event in the real world (such as a company or a referendum), so for the purposes I meant above perhaps I should have used a more general phrase like "piece of media", as my argument did not quite require the full specificity of the videos as "art".
 * Your comment about Bush and an Overton window is a common one—these are arguments that are not for us to engage in, but the reliable sources to. If the editorial team of a newspaper with stringent fact-checking policies calls a person's content "left-wing", then they have done the work for us. In many ways, learning to edit Wikipedia is learning to "write without a voice", to just be a vehicle for the body of literature we identify as "reliable" and "significant". This approach has many flaws, but it has allowed us to create a great volume of content which is widely read and sought out by people around the world, while maintaining at least some positive respect and reputation. In my opinion (not shared by all editors), we are not politically or philosophically neutral (I would argue no such thing exists), but take the political stance in the middle of the organisations we regard as reliable.
 * Thanks for reading this carefully and I look forward to your reply. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the courtesy ping at Me to We, though I don't think I need to reinsert any content. I wasn't sure what the game of the now-blocked editor was, but they were definitely editing in a suspect way and so kudos to you for the intervention. Best. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * great, thanks for clearing that up! — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
For being the voice of reason and apparently one of the only people to understand that our duty as editors isn't to assuage the feelings of other editors in terms of content, but provide a summary of what independent reliable sources say for readers. Praxidicae (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, ! I think you're underselling your own contributions—it's an accomplishment of both of us that the set is now complete. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

WE Charity
So what I did was right, but instead of simply replacing the link, I leave it as it is and add an archive instead? TheKing&#39;sMongrelSon (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for the message! Yes, we like to include the original link even if we add an archive link. To archive all references in a page automatically, you can go to  and then (maybe needing to log in or grant access at some point) you should see an interface entitled "Analyze a page", where you can click the checkbox for "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)" and press "Analyze". — Bilorv ( talk ) 02:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a good thing there's a button for it, because I'm not great at wikicode... TheKing&#39;sMongrelSon (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

NYPOST as unreliable source on WP...
...in regards to your revert I can not see how it relates to article that is mere non-political reporting that was problematic in NYPOST: "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. Editors consider the New York Post more reliable in the period before it changed ownership in 1976, and particularly unreliable for coverage involving the NYC police."

...also I wanted to place another link, to do it easily as there is no functional global whitelist.

This is also very far from useful PR and has no impact to major company like they are.

Zblace (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi but a blog post by Pornhub would not show due weight for this content, because it is a promotional campaign by the company. Wikipedia is not a place to report promotional campaigns unless they have been covered by reliable sources. NYPost is marked Generally unreliable at WP:RSP with the descriptors: generally unreliable for factual reporting ... editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. This applies to all subject areas, not just politics (though it is particularly poor for politics). — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Release date
Is it actually the norm to wait until a film has a release date for it to become an article on Wikipedia? I thought it was only necessary that a film finished production and passed WP:GNG. Anyway, my point is, I don't think it was fair to decline this draft for Distant. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi and thank you for the message. I'm seeing only routine coverage (WP:ROUTINE), which is not enough for GNG, and without a release date and in an pandemic where much of the entertainment industry is subject to uncertainty, I read this as a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Your two options are to wait until there is further coverage or to submit it again for another reviewer opinion. Thanks! — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is a "violation of WP:CRYSTAL". The film has coverage of when actors were cast, when filming began, and when filming concluded. That alone is enough to pass WP:GNG. The only instances where films fall under WP:CRYSTAL is when they're in development, or have just begun filming. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but coverage of actors being cast and filming is routine, at least to some degree. The article is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL if you accept the premises that the article does not currently meet GNG, because the coverage is routine, and that CRYSTAL prohibits articles on content which will only be notable if a future event takes place (the film's release). You do not have to accept these premises, but this is an explanation of my position. I hope this makes sense. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's take a look at WP:CRYSTAL. Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Is Distant notable? Yes. Will it be released? With filming having concluded, and Amblin Entertainment (a major production company) producing, yes. Is the article a predetermined list? No. Does this article present original research? No, there are multiple secondary sources on the film. Finally, could the film be considered a "rumor"? No, it's already complete. With this in mind, the Distant draft violates exactly zero things in WP:CRYSTAL, so, because of this, it should be moved into mainspace. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Question?
Hi, I am currently working on My Love from the Star to take it for GAN. I have already submitted a request at Wikiproject: Guild of Copy Editors for copy editing. The mentioned article doesn't have episode(s) list. As it was a concern at the earlier assessment; my question is that does a Television article compulsorily need an episode list or the synopsis/plot section is suffice. Thank you. -ink&amp;fables    «talk»   03:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for the question. MOS:TVPLOT says:
 * "For main series articles, plot summaries of no more than 200 words per episode should ideally be presented in a table using Episode table and Episode list (such as State of Affairs). If appropriate, these articles could instead include a prose plot summary of no more than 500 words per season (such as Scouted) instead of an episode table, but an article should have both an episode table and a prose summary."
 * In this case, the article does have a plose plot summary, so it definitely shouldn't have an episode table as well. You could say that this guideline says it is better to have an episode table instead where a show is easy to give episode-by-episode breakdowns (e.g. if episodes have standalone stories, or the events happen in chronological order). But personally, I would be happy as a GA reviewer for the article to have just a prose summary, not an episode table (but also happy if there was an episode table and no prose summary).
 * This is just my interpretation—those editors all seemed to favour an episode table but didn't really give a reason, so I would need to hear more from them to understand their opinions. You could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television for further advice, because I can only give you my opinion, not necessarily what the WikiProject as a whole would usually do.
 * Hope this is helpful! — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Bilorv for answering my question. I will surely ask the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, if I feel it is needed.  -ink&amp;fables  «talk»  17:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
I'm under a one-way IBAN at the moment, but I'm chuffed to be mentioned. :) Newimpartial (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry about the mistake . Don't want to tempt anyone to break an IBAN but I either didn't know about this one or it's the fault of my very short-term memory when it comes to drama. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It was kind of a stealth iban, involving one Admin, the complainant and one interloper. I may appeal it eventually, but I do find it helps me to slap my own hand, and others inevitably step in for what needs to be done. I don't know whether you remember the initial interaction that long proceeded the ban, just before your comment here in the page history, but that was far beyond my threshold for drama. Newimpartial (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
I documented a disturbing fact in the article you brought to a good level of quality that you yourself described at the good article review as a topic that is very disturbing: Talk:GirlsDoPorn/GA1. I didn't format the source exactly like you have, but perhaps you'll appreciate the addition. Kind regards. Biosthmors (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * really saddening news, but cheers for the edit—it's very helpful. I've tidied it a little. — Bilorv ( talk ) 01:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping me improve the article! once the marking is done I will edit the changes you recommended SydStudent (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * no problem, good to hear the comments are useful! — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Very helpful! also Im grateful for your looking at my references. I spent about 7 weeks accumulating those hahah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SydStudent (talk • contribs) 17:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:The Chronicles (2020 film)
Greetings, Sir. I intended asking you this: How does one add a tag to an article like this? Thanks. Kambai Akau (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm afraid I don't understand the question. Tag in what way? There are lots of different types of tags with different purposes. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay. I created the article, Draft:The Chronicles (2020 film) initially, during the WikiProject:AfroCine contest. If I am to tag it with the contest's link, where could be the proper place to place the tag? Thanks. Kambai Akau (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added a comment at the draft page with a link to this contest. Is this the kind of tag you were thinking of? Some WikiProject drives have dedicated templates you can place on the talk page to provide a link, like WIR-173 (click it to see), but this AfroCine Contest doesn't appear to have one. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah! Okay, no problems, sir. I will try improving it in some other way over time. I indeed appreciate. Kambai Akau (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Note
Considering recent events I found out that Gnu was in my notes as a potential sock for a while, but I've not had the time to investigate recent edits. In case it could be helpful, — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to email me to continue this conversation but without further evidence I don't think I'll find this helpful. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Beyond Order
Thank you for the message on my talk page. I am here to inform you I have rverted what you did. The reason I reverted to a revision before your one is because I think Vice is not considered a reliable source. Can you please just keep this page up, it is doing no harm, in fact it is helpful. I don't understand why people want to take it down so much. The PRH story must've created a dozen articles or so. If that is not notability, I don't know what is. It now meets WP:BOOK very well. Many books have pages about them that have not been published.

In an unrealated note, I appreciate you backing me up at Talk:White privilege, thank you. Kind regards J.Turner99 (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not my choice to make. Name a source in the article which has been published since the conclusion of the Articles for Deletion discussion. My understanding is that there isn't one, and hence you are just edit warring to overturn a consensus established by eight different people. Is this the message you want to send to them of how you feel about their considered contributions to the discussion (which you can recognize without agreeing with their opinions)?
 * As for Vice, if you don't like it then you shouldn't be quoting it, particularly without attribution, and then you'll also have to agree that the Vice and Guardian sources don't contribute towards notability. But part of what makes a publication reliable is its standing amongst reliable sources and the Guardian article that you did believe is reliable points you to this Vice article and quotes and uses it heavily, lending it credibility.
 * If you revert to restore the article a third time then I will begin escalating this and that could be quite unpleasant for both of us—I don't like causing drama; I like improving an encyclopedia. I am very concerned by this edit, because it gives me pause in my current assumption that you are here to work constructively as part of a community. I do not see how you could make that edit in good faith. Editing Wikipedia will involve compromises that you find highly unfair and morally objectionable. You are at a crossroads where the choice is to let this stand and understand that in the long run, nothing is lost by storing your edits for a few short months, or to waste a lot of people's time (including your own) to be left with no progress except a sour taste in your mouth. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That is one from two weeks ago. But this does not matter. The PRH protests were not discussed at all during the discussion, these portests add notability to the book. You don't have to hold any personal responsiblity if you turn you blind eye in this case—it's wikipedia, not murder. I appreciate your assiduity but feel my points are reasonable to reinstate the article. Of course I will allow you to respond and will not reinstate the article. I would really appreciate your support in contrast to what you are currently doing. --J.Turner99 (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hmm, odd that I missed this one given that I read it. One opinion piece does not substantially change things though. The PRH Canada coverage was released by the end of the discussion. I'm not going to turn a blind eye to anything. Your comments are very worrying with regard to Wikipedia's principles of reaching compromise and consensus, and maintaining this even when you do not agree with the outcome. If you do not respect eight people's opinions then why should I respect one person's? If the situation had changed substantially then the appropriate thing would be to hold a wider discussion rather than repeatedly undoing others' actions and let somebody else overturn the redirect if consensus was reached. — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I admit that removing the discussion banner was a bit below the belt. My main argument is that the people who voted for a redirect did so before the PRH coverage occured. Also it is worth saying that the wiki article it self did not mention it at all at the time. Another point is that they mostly voted on the basis that it does not meet WP:BOOK, it now does. I have two questions for you: How exactly would one start a new discussion? How do you type an em dash without copying and pasting? --J.Turner99 (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do understand your argument, but I don't agree. Articles for Deletion discussions focus on sources that exist rather than the sources present in an article and discussion participants will often come back and leave another comment if the situation changes significantly; when you read each comment, do you really think that the sources about PRH Canada protests address all of the given participants' concerns? I can see at least four participants raising at least one argument which has not materially changed. I am confident that a discussion begun now will end with the same conclusion, but of course I am not always correct. I reckon you would be best to begin a discussion at Talk:Jordan Peterson to establish consensus, if you insist on this, but there are many ways to skin a cat.
 * As for the em dash, in the default wikitext editor you should see a bar below the text field beginning "Insert" and continuing with a number of symbols, one of which is an em dash. Pressing it inserts one into wikitext where the cursor is. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your guidance—J.Turner99 (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

RE: Draft:Ed Brown (Texas politician)
Per WP:NPOL, US politicians elected to state legislatures are considered notable. Just a heads up since you're from the UK and declined this draft. Regardless, keep up the good work! Curbon7 (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ugh, should have read it all more closely. I read the draft thinking the person was like a local council person and NPOL not connecting the "state/province" to "legislative". Will take more care in future. Thanks for the comment! — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Frail State of Mind
Hey there. First off, always glad to meet a fellow 1975 fan! Secondly, thank you for reviewing "Frail State of Mind". Your comments were helpful and really made the article shine. I've made all the changes you've suggested. If there's anything else you need me to complete, please don't hesitate to let me know. I look forward to working together more in the future! Cheers.  Gia co bbe  talk 01:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * absolutely, I did NOACF's "The 1975" a while back and it's good to see some more expansion on this album. A few small points at the GA review and then this should be good to go. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Why my draft of book Why does a man rape is declined?
They don't show only mention if you clearly read the Policy Times article or Diverge Media, it clearly shows about book. Like in the policy times article it talks about the book and says that ‘Why Does A Man Rape?’; Uncovering the Dark Truths behind the Heinous Act of Rape. Moreover, other articles also talk about the book it's just they have mentioned the author in the beginning and then they have talked about the book but that doesn't mean it is only a mention. In addition, every article shows that what is inside the book and why the author has written it like "This book addresses some taboo and controversial issues related to rape. Why do people rape? Who to blame for rapes? Is rape confined to the human race? Is this new in this generation or are there any references to such incidents in our history? Such questions are answered fluently in his book, 'Why does Man rape'. Kindly tell me your review on this so that I can resubmit it

Rajveer90 (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi and thank you for the questions! Have you noticed the comment by the other reviewer, sources given are mainly or exclusively reprints of press releases? I didn't actually read the comment until I had evaluated the sources but I found myself coming to a similar conclusion. The Times source is a reprint of IssueWire, a press release. Other sources are similar. These do not have the independence from the subject necessary that is necessary to contribute towards notability (recall: sources need to be published, reliable, secondary, independent and have significant coverage). WP:NBOOK is most commonly met by showing two book reviews in reliable sources with wide circulation. Bestseller lists can count in place of this, but you should cite those bestseller lists directly. I'm also concerned that the sources are not reliable. Anything that looks like a blog (and The Times does to me, but I'm not a subject expert) is not good. I'd be looking for something on the quality of Times of India or The Indian Express, whether a review or a bestseller list—anything significantly less well-known is probably not good enough for Wikipedia. Not all books are notable and so it may be that there's no way we can have an article on this book. Let me know if you have any further questions! — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Unaware that the user had asked here, I answered them at WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, your answer is much appreciated. Rajveer90, I agree with everything that Cyphoidbomb has written, and they make some good points that I did not. — Bilorv ( talk ) 01:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. We all are working to make Wikipedia better. One quick question if I add the references from Times of India, Hindustan Times, Daily Hunt, or The Indian Saga then that would work? And one more thing sources should be directly related to a book or it can be the author's interview where he talked about the book in the interview. Kindly give me more insight on this so that I can resubmit it.

Rajveer90 (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with all of those sources but you can try it and resubmit to see what another reviewer thinks. Interviews are good to include but they do not count towards notability (you tell me: which of the five criteria do they fail? Published, reliable, secondary, independent or significant coverage?). Make sure that you remove the press release sources and that you have two reviews that meet the five criteria. — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. The editor has rejected the draft as he thinks that it doesn't meet the General Notability Guidelines (GNG). He has written that " as most of the references you used appear to be press releases, meaning, they are not independent of Jasbir Singh, which is one of the requirements that must be met to pass our General Notability Guideline." I will remove that press release as I am getting sources of Hindustan Times, Daily Hunt, and The Indian Saga. But can you tell me about other sources like The Policy Times, Lpu Alumni, and the Issue wire; Are they good enough? Rajveer90 (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not an expert in this area but no, I wouldn't believe The Policy Times or LPU Alumni to contribute significantly towards notability, and IssueWire is a press release so definitely does not. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I have added the reference of Hindustan Times one of the biggest newspapers in India, The India Saga, and Diverge Media a leading independent media house in Canada. I have resubmitted the article for review. Kindly check it if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajveer90 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * good to hear that you've made improvements! I'll leave this to another reviewer to assess. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft improved and ready for review
Hi, Bilorv.. Could you please take a look at my draft again for a review.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:XSET

I had made changes to it initially but have no idea why they were reverted.. I have fixed it now and I believe it's ready for another review. Thanks! Mondayudowong (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * good to hear! Another reviewer will assess it when they can. Notice that you can link to the draft with the code:  (which produces: Draft:XSET). — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright, got it. Thanks! Mondayudowong (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Cumulus (sculpture)
Hello Bilorv! Thanks for reviewing the article and for your comments. I’ve revised as per your suggestions and added more notable sources. Before I officially resubmit, may I ask you to take a look and let me know if all is good now? Also, based on your feedback, I looked into Cloud Appreciation Society more and it looks like they are actually quite an interesting and legitimate organization (see coverage by the New York Times, NYT Magazine, USA Today, and National Geographic. Expanding Wikipedia’s Cloud Appreciation Society stub will likely be my next editing project!) Anyway, looking forward to your reactions, and thanks again for the review. -- Silver Belle Elena (talk)


 * Hi ! On the strength of Hedge Magazine, Our RISD, Cloud Appreciation Society (which I'll now agree with you is likely a good source, good evidence from the news coverage) as well as the existing Caltech, I've approved this through the AfC process straightaway (hope you don't mind). Just a warning that the threshold we use at AfC is "more than 50% chance to survive a deletion discussion" so this isn't a guarantee that all editors will share my current opinion that this is notable. Thanks for your work! Cloud Appreciation Society looks like an interesting next target. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , thank you! I certainly don't mind at all, and appreciate your help making this article stronger.-- Silver Belle Elena (talk)

January 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Angeli ‎, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * since you're not an uninvolved administrator or oversighter and my edits have not been revdelled or oversighted, how best would you prefer I contest this unusual and unexplained invokation of WP:BLPREMOVE to remove my expression of an editorial opinion (as AfDs aggregate to reach a consensus) that made reference to reliable, high-quality sources? In a show of good faith and an attempt to avoid miscommunication or hasty admin actions, I want to state clearly that I will not reassert such statements or re-add the contested content without independent assessment that the content is BLP-acceptable. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , WP:BLPN Elizium23 (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , would you mind creating a thread and describing the dispute, since I do not understand your reasons to apply BLPREMOVE and have just said above that I will not reassert such statements? I will respond to comments in such a thread in response to specific queries or in order to give general reasons for why I believe my actions are justified (e.g. "my statement provided a reliable source, X") but I don't want to link to the diff or describe what the dispute is about because my wording may in unexplained ways fall afoul of BLPREMOVE and potentially get me blocked. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Smithereens (Black Mirror)
I was recently editing the Black Mirror episode "Smithereens" and I think it's ready for GA. I also noticed that you have been nominating multiple Black Mirror episodes and that you were also one of the top editors on the page, so I was wondering if you wanted to co-nominate the article. Some Dude From North Carolina wanna talk? 16:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message, ! These are great edits but I've been working on these in turn to get them to quite a uniform structure (progress at User:Bilorv/Black Mirror; ignore "White Bear" as an edge case) and it's not fleshed out to that structure yet. That's not to say it isn't at GA-quality now, though I might be looking for more from the critics as a reviewer. (Specifically, I'd want enough criticism for it to be organised by themes rather than reviewer. Copyediting reception sections is one of the best things I've ever read but it pushes near to FA-level quality. The way I do it is in two sections, "Analysis" and "Reception", and I go through 10-15 reviews or so, pick out good quotes and ideas and then reorganise them all by topic. Analysis might have paragraphs like: "what genre is the episode?"; "what did people say about the main characters?"; "what comments on the storyline were there?". Reception could be: "ratings and overall comments"; "criticism of the storyline"; "criticism of the message"; "criticism of the acting and directing and soundtrack". Every case is different though. This works for Black Mirror very well but I understand other topics with fewer reviews are less suited to this.) But I'd like a chance to get more Production content (if there is more for season 5—haven't done one yet), much more out of the critics, tighten the plot prose, add a couple of good images and do my last-minute GA-prep tweaks.
 * I've done three to GA recently and am hoping to keep the momentum going, so I can put "Smithereens" next on my list if you like (fantastic episode IMO, looking forward to it). Don't want to be overly OWN-y but I will flesh the article out before or after the GA review and I figure it might as well be before; and I've been going to for the reviews as we've done quite a few together rather than face the potential few months' wait (though other feedback is always welcome! and I did try for a good variety of reviewers to build up this uniform structure I've had for the last couple of years). — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply! I guess the article does need a bit of expansion, and that its GA-nomination can wait. Well, thanks for the kind (and very detailed) reply, and I hope you are able to do all the things you need to do for this episode. Good luck! Some Dude From North Carolina wanna talk? 17:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * took me a bit longer than I'd hoped but Smithereens (Black Mirror) is now a GA. Your edits were very much a help in this, so thanks! — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, thank you! Your amazing edits were the reason the article became a good one in the first place. Your work has been greatly appreciated, especially since that's one of my most favorite Black Mirror episodes, so really, thank you. Some Dude From North Carolina wanna talk? 15:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome
Thanks for the welcome but I wasn't logged in for those edits as I don't for very minor edits.

My main contributions are as cannonmc. Cheers 86.10.105.108 (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, —and the part of the welcome text where I say you're welcome to ask me for help anytime you need it still applies, of course. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Relevance of Bill O'Reilly's sexual harassment scandal in lead of The First TV article. Thank you. --D00dadays (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:XSET
Hi, Bilorv. You reviewed my draft 23 days ago and declined it due to some of the changes I made being reverted. I'd like to let you know it's been fixed and I've re'submitted(20 days ago). Can you take a look at its content once more to see if there are not issues? Mondayudowong (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've declined it again on the grounds of still reading like an advert, regrettably. Neutrally written articles don't contain such passages as The origin of XSET comes from the idea of creating an esports organization that focuses on the inclusivity and channeling of efforts toward various causes such as the Black Lives Matter movement, mental health, and environmental consciousness, or ® symbols everywhere—such things are features of press releases or adverts in newspapers. I notice that you've removed the paid contribution disclosure on your userpage—if you have been paid in the past then you need to continue to display this notice.
 * I've seen your other drafts and I have to give you this advice: if you're no longer being paid to edit then it's a really bad idea to keep pushing these attempts at creating new articles on internet figures and groups. It's one of the places on Wikipedia with the steepest learning curve and where editors have the least patience, because we're so overwhelmed by low-quality high-volume content. It's also hard to learn how to do things correctly in this area because 95% of our existing articles on YouTubers and such are crap that need rewriting top to bottom. Making slow, steady, uncontroversial improvements (such as introducing high-quality reliable sources to existing articles) in a more traditionally encyclopedic topic is a better way to go about learning the ropes. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Bilorv. I understand. But I love the idea behind Wikipedia. This is why I've continued to write articles. I believe some things take time and I'd surely understand all of the main ideas behind making my articles completely neutral. But thanks once more. I will work on it again in order to improve it. Mondayudowong (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Ah, well I had a head start and still missed a couple (1, 2). ;) Much appreciated! — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

New message from J.Turner99
Hi, I is it OK if I reinstate the article yet? It comes out in less than a month and has a wealth of new sources. Kind regards J.Turner99 (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm failing to find new sources, so I really doubt that you've found multiple high-quality, in-depth sources about the book (not the author, like the recent Times profile) that make this an exceptional case of notability prior to release (999 out of 1000 books or more do not have this attribute). If you have then show me them. I strongly advise you that reinstatement will not go well for you. I see you have been causing disruption recently with ridiculous unfounded accusations and bad-quality edits in controversial subject areas. If you wish to remain unblocked you will not add yet another edit war over Beyond Order to the list.
 * I would recommend that you stop editing American/Canadian politics-related topics effective immediately and focus on fully uncontroversial, small-scale improvements in other areas of interest you have (films? gardening? music?) so you can learn the standards of Wikipedia better. Trying to edit politics as your first topic area on Wikipedia is like running into a burning building to rescue people on your first day as a firefighter. It's no place to learn and you'll just get burned.
 * Notice that the talkback template is used in the way you did if you want me to refer to a conversation at User talk:J.Turner99—you don't need a template just to start a discussion here, and if you did intend me to refer to a conversation at your talk page then I can't see a relevant one. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. The Times article does talk for a few paragraphs about the situation surrounding the book? J.Turner99 (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also Peterson has realesed all of the 12 rules in the book so we could list those. J.Turner99 (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What did you mean by "wealth of new sources"? You've named one source which is not in-depth and one which is not a secondary source. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:XSET
Hi, Bilorv. Trust you are doing great. I followed your instruction and I edited Draft:XSET by removing all terms that seem like an advertisement. I'd like to request that you have a look and let me know if anything else needs fixing. Mondayudowong (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * yep, it looks like the draft is in much better shape neutrality-wise. I'll let another reviewer assess whether it has demonstrated notability for companies or has any other issues that would prevent it from being included in mainspace (i.e. made a live article). — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright, man. Thank you Mondayudowong (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts
I really appreciate you taking the time to reach out to that user to help them feel safer on the project. Please let me know if this link ever turns blue. –xenotalk 04:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's very generous of you to say,, thank you. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxhela_Peristeri
hey you, thank for responding quickly.. I did not knew the user laof2017 is not an administrator...I was a bit angered of him so my comments were a bit inappropriate. But he deleted my edition although I linked the evidence! He misconfuses me with aperson to whom he has a conflict,(commenst of him to my disscusionpage) so I was forced to give him my full name and offerd him my data to get convinced that I am not this person! Is there a way to verify my Identity to wikipedia,so that everyone knows who I am?

I am new here,medical student and fell desperate..

you wrote: (Hi Angelos-Philip M., the user you've mentioned is not an administrator. The majority of people here (admins included) are volunteers who work together to write and improve content. I notice your comments towards Iaof2017 have been quite threatening, though I don't speak German very well. Conflicts like this should be resolved by polite discussion: making immediate assumptions that other people are acting in bad faith or have some agenda against you are not acceptable. If you do not understand somebody's reasoning then you should ask them politely, explaining exactly what you are having trouble understanding. — Bilorv (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC))

--Angelos-Philip M. (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi again Bilorv! I was trying to help here and it appears a claim is made in Escbeat which another user feels is inaccurate (?) and undid our caller's edit. Ty for your assist. –xenotalk  17:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * can you point me to the specific link and passage in which you think "He misconfuses me with aperson to whom he has a conflict"? I'm having trouble finding such a thing and feel like this could be a misunderstanding. Additionally, there is no need to disclose your identity to anybody: almost all volunteers here are anonymous. I notice you've been contacting quite a lot of people but the solution here is to engage in calm discussion with the original person who found your edit inappropriate. It seems to me that you still do not understand the reason they undid your edit, and you cannot say that somebody is wrong if you do not understand the reason for their action. No other user will be able to tell you what somebody else's reasoning was: you need to talk to that person, without threats or rudeness or harassment. You also seem to think that Wikipedia has a hierarchy of people who decide what to include in an article, and that an administrator or bureaucrat or the Arbitrarion Committee can be the ultimate decider of such things. These people only have authority over behavioural issues (such as if somebody is being persistently rude or repeatedly making the same changes over and over without discussion), and have no special power in terms of the content of our articles. The content is decided by individual volunteers engaging in discussion. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxhela_Peristeri
thank you again for peplying..

when I want to get to his disskussion site(there has he wrote akk things..about confusing me) I jus get this as reply:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iaof2017#Anxhela_Peristeri the comments seem to be all deleted..

by the way here another site the ESC Radio which confirms my version:

https://www.eurofansradio.com/latest-news/albania-anxhela-peristeri-will-keep-karma-with-albanian-lyrics

--Angelos-Philip M. (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you click "Edit history" then you should be able to see all the changes that have been made to a page. To link a page on Wikipedia, you can use square brackets to make a link e.g.  produces Anxhela Peristeri. The proper place to present sources is at Talk:Anxhela Peristeri—there is no point giving them to me because I am not the person who is familiar with the topic and objected to the change you made. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You're welcome, . Glad to hear that my comment was useful. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxhela_Peristeri
thank you so musch, I have one last question: I gather now alot of links so I can put some evidence..

Do I have to ask someone for permission first? loaf2017 or someone else? If I make changes is there any risk to get banned?

--Angelos-Philip M. (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good question! You should present your evidence at Talk:Anxhela Peristeri and discuss it with anybody who replies. You don't need to re-add the content: doing so is not helpful until you have got agreement from other editors. If other editors agree with you, then somebody (maybe one of them, maybe you) can re-add the content. But you should not edit the article directly at this point. If an editor disagrees with adding your new evidence to the article then you need to stay calm, not attack anybody and understand what the reason they disagree is. You might agree with their reasoning, and move on to something else, or you might try to provide a counterargument. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:RishikeshShukre
Greetings, can you please tell that, the Draft:RishikeshShukre (Article) I have made about this actor is correct or not. Do I need to make some changes to it ? Please guide me on this question Thanks in advance ! Cancersign (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * what is the source of the image File:Rishikesh Shukre (Actor).jpg? If you found it on the internet then it is copyrighted (by default) and so cannot be hosted on Wikimedia Commons or used on Wikipedia. As for the draft content, IMDb is a user-generated source (it is written by volunteers, much like Wikipedia) and so that makes it unreliable for Wikipedia's purposes. Usually a specific source is not necessary to prove that an actor was in a film or television series—the credits of the work itself will serve as proof—but sources are needed for content like the "Education" section. Other than IMDb, there are four sources. We need to see if these prove notability by Wikipedia standards. If a topic isn't notable then we can't have an article on it. We need multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, independent of each other and of the subject and give in-depth coverage of Shukre. Issue Wire is just a press release (see its About us page, and it's also clear from the style of promotional writing) so it's not independent of the subject. ANI, Animation Magazine and The Georgetown Voice don't mention Shukre so it's not in-depth coverage. So unfortunately none of these sources contribute to notability.  In general, creating new articles can be one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia, so I would generally suggest to newcomers that it is easier to improve an existing article by finding and adding reliable sources than it is to create articles. For instance, you could take a film Shukre worked on, find a review in a national mainstream source and summarize that review in the existing article on the film. To see if a source is reliable, you can first consult with Reliable sources/Perennial sources, where we keep a list of some commonly-discussed sources and the community's opinion of them, and if it's not present then you need to evaluate it on its own merits (e.g. whether it's written by paid staff, whether it has a corrections process, whether it has a wide audience). — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

An article might be COI and might be delete worthy.
Timothy_Ballard

It reminds me a lot of Articles_for_deletion/Jacob_Teitelbaum

Let me know your opinion --Annemaricole (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for the question. From a cursory glance, a number of differences between the two situations strike me. Few substantial edits were made to Jacob Teitelbaum except by two editors who didn't work on many other topics. (I know the edit history has a lot of clutter but when I look at the edit summaries or changes, I see most other edits were insubstantial in affecting the article content.) At Timothy Ballard, I see a number of different editors making substantial improvements, including a couple of quite established editors. At Teitelbaum, I saw few reliable sources about Teitelbaum. At Ballard, The Washington Post, Deadline and The Hollywood Reporter first catch my eye as excellent-quality sources and when I browse the links I see Ballard is indeed substantially mentioned in the articles.  I see that another editor has tagged the article as possibly created by a conflict-of-interest editor, as the page creator made few other edits. This could indeed be the case, and even so the article might better be fixed by rewriting and further improvement rather than deleting. This process would involve somebody going through each source, removing any that are unreliable, and otherwise making sure that the most relevant facts from each one are in the article, and then searching for any more sources that are not included. That could be quite time-consuming so before diving in you'd want to set out how much time you're prepared to spend, whether there any particular parts of the article that look bad that you want to review first, and whether there are any important sources or stories not included. In doing that you might even find "actually, the article's pretty good already". Generally I'd work on the body of the article first, and from doing that I'd get a good grasp of what the most important facts that belong in the lead are. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll keep this in mind for subsequent articles--Annemaricole (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Beyond Order
Hello. I hope you're well. I think we are ready to move it up to C Class? I put this on your talk page because I know you're the only one who would stop me from doing that if you disagree J.Turner99 (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion,, the article does now meet the C-class criteria, yes. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Edits: Beyond Order by Jordan Peterson
Dear Bilorv! Feedback to Beyond Order edits

I am rather confused by your rationale for removing a simple and factual reference to Jordan Peterson's Quora post on his "42 rules" he posted there in 2012. There is nothing "interpretive" with that primary source. It simply and clearly proves the claim in the previous sentence.

You cite Wikipedia's rule and cautions in relation to primary sources, but ignore them in this instance ("A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.")

You suggest that the Guardian article, for example, more accurately reflects what Jordan posted there. Unfortunately, that is not the case, although I take your point well that the firewall is not a big issue (it still interferes with people's ability to check that fact quickly and easily when a freely available source is readily available).

May I also point out that Quora's related policy states: "Any source cannot be anything but a primary source for a Wikipedia article that has that source as its main topic. ... Secondary sources are reports that draw on research and other references to make interpretive, analytical or synthesized claims," but there is no "interpretation" that helps us understand what Jordan himself posted (revised) in 2018, since that citation directly supports the sentence that precedes that citation (which essentially asks, "What did Jordan post in 2012?"). Your suggested citations do not appear to even summarize those 42 rules he posed, let alone list them, which is the whole point of that sentence.

In what respect does citing the two "interpretive" articles support the simple fact that Peterson posted those 42 rules on Quora back in 2012 and revised them in 2018? Without directly supporting your claim, you appear to be adding interpretation where none is helpful or called for. You (I hate to say it) appear to have a bias against Peterson that is interfering with the factual content and intention of this page.

Am I misinterpreting something in your changes?

I appreciate this discussion as I am new to editing pages, although an experienced professional copy editor who sees something glaring and potentially unethical going on with the changes to these pages. I was trained to spot such meddling. I am alarmed to see it happen so blatantly and encourage you to rebuff what I perceive to be the case.

Thank you for at least explaining yourself. I hate to say that you were unconvincing. I love to be proven wrong, frankly.

Ian van de Burgt (vandeburgt) (talk)
 * Hi and thanks for the message. It's fantastic to hear you're a professional copyeditor—I'm sure this means you can become a great asset to our community. But you have to understand that Wikipedia has a very specific and kitsch in-house style, you will have a lot to learn about Wikipedia editing no matter how good you are at your regular job, and your behavior of repeatedly reverting to reinstate your changes at Beyond Order are not a good sign in this matter, nor your accusations of anybody who's interacted with you of having a personal vendetta against Peterson. You should consider that if three experienced editors think you have done something wrong then maybe you've done something wrong (not "morally wrong" as in "you should have known not to do this", but "factually wrong" as in "this goes against Wikipedia's guidelines").
 * Secondary sources are preferred for a range of reasons: I gave you just the tip of the iceberg but it's sad to see that you assume I am "ignor[ing]" guidelines rather than that I have more detailed reasoning than I was able to pen. I always have five reasons in my head for every one I type up because usually that's sufficient and there would be no hours left in the day were I to give every reason to every newcomer who disputes a change. The Quora source would possibly be acceptable were there no secondary sources, based on your argument. But it is worse than the secondary sources because it does not show significance.
 * For instance, I could expand Beyond Order with 1000 words of text of the following form (facts made up for this example): "On January 19, 2020, Peterson said the phrase 'beyond order' in the YouTube video 'The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - Season 2, Episode 6'. On March 25, 2020, after the book title had been announced, Peterson's website updated in line with this announcement at the subpage 'Beyond Order'. On May 19, 2020, 'Beyond Order' was first mentioned on Peterson's website's front page". Can you see the exaggerated issue here? That something is verifiably true (I could easily support these claims with primary sources, via the Wayback Machine) is necessary but not sufficient for us to mention it. Primary sources are fine for information that is uncontroversially important to mention (e.g. the country somebody grew up) but this is not such, as an academic having an account on a Q&A website like Quora or Stack Exchange is almost never important information. But in this case, the fact that it is mentioned in secondary sources tells us that we've hit an exception: it is important information in this case only. We need the sources in the article to demonstrate this. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Greetings
Why did you not leave a warning on the other user's page? J.Turner99 (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Because in my assessment the user was not edit warring. If your assessment is that they were then observe that two wrongs do not make a right, so that your question is irrelevant to whether my warning applies, and that you have been given an awful lot of leeway for your behavior on this topic in the past. Notice that I am not obliged to make any edit because I'm a volunteer, this is my spare time and conflict is not my idea of fun. I am in no way able to impose sanctions on you, as I am not an admin, am involved anyway, and have been trying to assume as much good faith as prudent, but continued poor actions in this area will lead to me beginning a conversation for others to decide whether sanctions are appropriate.
 * To list the actions explicitly: you reinstated an article against consensus and in the process exemplified that you have not listened to and internalized the reasons the article was initially redirected; you made this extremely poor edit; you have left spurious warnings, noticeboard reports and sockpuppetry reports with no validity (some of which could be made in good faith but taken together, cannot be so); continue to badger almost all users who engage in the topic Beyond Order, creating a chilling effect on future participation; and this edit here makes me very dubious of whether even you believe your changes are constructive or made in good faith. You have ignored repeated good faith attempts by people to engage you in discussion about why your actions have been a waste of time for many volunteers and instead continue the same types of actions. I recommend that you shift your focus to video game-related topics like Call of Duty: Warzone, where you have demonstrated an ability to make useful contributions without engaging in questionable behavior (so far as I can see). — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The user was edit warring on another page just yesterday, you must've have seen that, because the user was edit warring with me. I reported the user, and the admin reviewed 'stale', because we agreed to compromise and discuss the edits. I do not know when I have badgered anyone.
 * I apprciate your criticism but I feel you have jumped the gun on saying i'm have bad faith. I have very often come to you for guidance and most of my incompetencies were were because I did not know any better. I have usually tried to take what you have said to me in the past on board. J.Turner99 (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I thank you for the suggestion, however I no longer have interest in video game-related topics, however I am proud of what my child has become. J.Turner99 (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

RE: Ah, to be young again
Bravo, Bilorv, for your poignancy and grace. A comment for the ages, if you will. Best, El_C 00:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * if only I could summon such wit then the section title would certainly have been "A comment for the ages". Glad you liked it. — Bilorv ( talk ) 01:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack
Please lay out exactly how I "attacked" this user. I'm not seeing it. If you're going to accuse me of something so egregious, it would be prudent to have actual evidence. Otherwise, this situation could be construed as wasting a person's time. Auror Andrachome (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question, . You can read about what a personal attack is at No personal attacks (NPA): the common mantra with this is: Comment on content, not on the contributor. I linked to two edits. In the first, you use the phrase get a life, which is a rude and demeaning comment about a contributor, rather than an objection to the substance and content of their edit. (If you had an objection of the latter form, then the best workflow would be to argue your case on the talk page, rather than reverting.) In the second, you comment on two identity attributes of another user, and one political belief, and conclude: Of course you would stalk pages like J.K. Rowling to edit it in such a biased fashion. Notice that NPA lists as an example of one category of personal attacks: Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. This covers the political belief. Another category is: Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on [attributes including sexual orientation and gender identity]. This relates to the identity attributes.
 * As such, your comments violate NPA and an uninvolved administrator can block you for future such comments. My warning has no formal authority (and I am not an administrator), but could be used as evidence in discussion that you have been made aware that your comments are personal attacks and that they are not acceptable behaviour. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I will concede that although I was correct about the first wikipedian and was not wrong to say what I did in the edit summary, I will concede that that could be construed as a personal attack. But your second point is seriously stretching the definition. It was not an ad hominem attack. Identifying attributes of an editor is completely fair game if it could potentially influence their bias in an article. It's not as if the traits were completely unrelated to one another. J.K. Rowling and her article is under constant attack by people who perceive her comments to be transphobic. What I stated about the user was not a personal attack or anything out of the blue. Wikipedia already has a known left-wing bias that is actively hurting its credibility. Wikipedian users should do more to make sure that they are editing information accurately and with as little bias as possible. Asking a user to correct their bias is not a personal attack. Period. Auror Andrachome (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Auror, you were not Asking a user (me) to correct their bias, you were accusing me of bias based, not on my edit history, but on attributes enumerated on my user page. That is a form of WP:UNCIVIL behaviour that is specifically disallowed under WP:NPA, and if you think doing so is completely fair game if it could potentially influence their bias in an article then you are out of step with clearly articulated community norms on WP, and can have no reasonable expectation of editing for long in this Discretionary Sanctions area, where higher than usual standards of CIVILity are expected. 18:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs)
 * all counterargument I have to your comment is already contained in my initial message and the content of WP:NPA; I would recommend re-reading both in further detail. You are entitled to your opinion, but not to freedom from the consequences that may come if you continue making derogatory comments about contributors on the basis of their personal identity, rather than content. An addendum: a user removing a message can be taken as evidence that they are aware of its contents, and people are given quite a lot of liberties in removing or rearranging content on their talk page, so please do not make reverts such as this one in future. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your edit history and contributions are public for everyone to see. It was not solely based on your userpage. Instead of getting offended at a fair suggestion, why not just do better? Nothing I said was incredibly so egregious that it can be considered uncivil, and no derogatory comments were made. Everyone should do better to correct their biases, all the while ensuring they do not drag down Wikipedia by making it a partisan place. Users would also do well to stop hawking on articles to correct any single thing they happen to disagree with because it does not mesh with their own personal worldview. Auror Andrachome (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: Users would also do well to stop hawking on articles to correct any single thing they happen to disagree with because it does not mesh with their own personal worldview - yes, that, and please remove the lumber from your own eye first. Also, casting WP:ASPERSIONS without evidence in the form of diffs is, in fact, a WP:CIVIL violation, and doing so in a discretionary sanctions area is a career-limiting move (as far as WP editing is concerned). Newimpartial (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Opinion
Hello Bilorv, apologies for the random message. If you remember, you did a source review last month for my FL nomination, Harry Styles discography. The article got promoted recently. I'm currently working on List of awards and nominations received by Harry Styles in hopes to make it a FL. I wanted to ask your opinion on the lead, but only if you have time- do you think it's worth mentioning that Styles received awards at the BMI Awards, for co-writing songs as a part of One Direction; or should I just highlight the awards he received as a solo artist? I'll really appreciate your opinion. Thank you. -- Ashley yoursmile!  17:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for the question! I think this is a matter of taste, so it's just my personal opinion, but I would like to see a link to List of awards and nominations received by One Direction in the lead (e.g. Styles is also a member of One Direction, who received a number of awards and nominations) and it would make sense to have a sentence following that about BMI Awards for co-writing some 1D songs. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I'll write it phrase it accordingly. Thank you very much for taking a look at it. :) Ashley  yoursmile!  18:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

newsweek
is not a reliable source? -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 19:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * well, certainly not reliable for this claim but take a look at its RSP entry. It can be reliable post-2013 "on a case-by-case basis" but I think politics and critical analysis of contentious racial claims are firmly in the "cases to omit" bucket, so I can't see this Newsweek article being usable for anything. (Not to say it's necessarily wrong, but it wouldn't show significance, could create POV concerns and anything it says that is significant, someone else will have said better.) — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow. Sad they went that way. Thanks. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 19:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Graham Linehan
Hi Bilorv. Could you please point me to the consensus on the Graham Linehan intro? I've looked at the talk page but all I can see is a lot of people disputing both that and the section entitled "anti-transgender activism", which I would agree is also far from neutral. Would be useful to know where this consensus can be found so that I can join the debate.

I would note, for what it's worth, that I haven't engaged in edit-warring as you suggested. I reverted one of your edits once, which I trust is allowed, especially given that you've reverted my edit twice. Clicriffhard (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing me with Black Kite, given that you haven't reverted any of my edits. You have engaged in edit warring because you instated a change that you knew was disputed against a long-standing version rather than wait for feedback and further discussion. The number of edits you made is irrelevant to what their intent was. Relevant talk page sections include the one you've written a message in, Talk:Graham Linehan/Archive 5 and Talk:Graham Linehan/Archive 3. Whichever version has been used gathers constant changes and criticism because this is a highly contentious area, so "all I can see is a lot of people disputing [the current version]" is not very meaningful. This would be true of all phrasings if they were long-standing. See the RfC in particular for the widest consensus by participants who haven't come to the talk page as a backlash reaction to the current version or to push an agenda (as RfCs garner lots of outside attention from people not involved in the topic area). — Bilorv ( talk ) 01:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, I conflated you with Black Kite - apologies. Probably best to continue the main discussion on the article's talk page, but could you please clear something up for me: you said that there was a "consensus", and when I ask you to link to it, you link me to an RfC that concludes "no consensus" - so where is the consensus please? Clicriffhard (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing me with Black Kite again, who said "there is general consensus that it is correct". I initially said "this is the current most-supported version". Perhaps "sufficient discussion has been had that one person's opinion cannot become the new version of the article without support from other editors" is really the information I aimed to convey. You'll notice the RfC closure says that the version is the status quo. — Bilorv ( talk ) 02:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So there is no consensus? That's good to know. Any idea why Bastun, Black Kite and others keep saying that there is? Clicriffhard (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * let me get this straight. You confuse me twice with another user and make a series of comments and reverts that demonstrate a lack of due diligence in understanding a situation before throwing yourself in hard. I then point you to some initial context, but this isn't good enough for you. You're not interested in reading and researching the talk page history on your own. You instead expect me to do the due diligence for you in excruciating detail and ask me to explain why other people took the actions they did. I see edits like yours ten times a week and ten of them get reverted. If I had to respond to each of them in the detail you're expecting me to here then I would have no time to do any of the content creation, reviewing etc. that I do here. Do the research yourself rather than taking up other people's time.
 * I'm not interested in your first apology for confusing me with another editor and I'm not interested in your lack of apology the second time. Instead what I am interested in is you actually calming down, taking some time to research a topic before forming an opinion and double checking everything you write before you submit it. I am disappointed that you are continuing with this "all guns blazing" approach by trying to argue about your gut instinct opinion rather than reading and researching the topic in the level of detail you'll need given the talk page history context and wealth of reliable sources on the topic, and then forming a new opinion on the balance of the new information you learn. As such I don't expect to be replying to you further. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well that's a pretty extreme reaction to a mild question. I totally accept that I got you mixed up with Black Kite, and I've apologised - whether you accept it or not is entirely up to you.
 * People are encouraged to make edits "boldly" where they find a lack of neutrality or unsupported statements in articles - Wikipedia clearly isn't intended to be the sole preserve of people who have time to spend all day reading five archives' worth of talk pages, and isn't intended to be effectively locked down by people claiming consensus but demonstrating none (by which I don't mean you) or defending the status quo purely on the basis that it's the status quo. And while your condescension is noted, I haven't formed any opinions on "gut instinct" - I've considered them and argued them on the article's talk page as I was asked to do. It is my considered opinion that non-neutral language has been inserted into the article and is being carefully guarded by people who appear to want the article to express their opinions as fact. I don't expect you to respond to me here, but if you ask people to discuss contentious edits on the talk pages then obviously you need to discuss back.
 * You probably think I'm a supporter of Linehan. For the record, I'm not - he's a dickhead - but that's completely beside the point. The point is that it's an encyclopedia and I think there's value in resisting attempts to turn it into an overgrown pamphlet. I would ask you to engage on the talk page, but if you prefer, I'll do some research and find out what action I'm supposed to take when people demand discussion of an edit and then decline to engage in that discussion. I appreciate your time so far. Clicriffhard (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020
Hi, Bilorv; thrilled to see participation at URFA! I need to correct your entry there, though, and I'm not sure how. Because the page is huge and difficult to edit, we need to keep comments as brief as possible. Because we have to track many articles over time, we need to have dates. Because we want the table to be sortable, we need to use standard terms. And because we are working to encourage other editors to improve articles pre-FAR, we have to sort whether we are just leaving notes, or are escalating to a FAR notice per the WP:FAR instructions, in which case noms are added to Featured article review/notices given so that anyone can nominate them at FAR after the waiting period has passed. So, considering all of that, are you intending your post at the article talk page to be notes or a formal FAR notice? That is, your entry at URFA/2020 could be shortened to either: That provides the date, allows the column to be sorted, let's us know if it is FAR eligible or you are just attempting to engage the editor before escalating to FAR, and minimizes the size of the information put there, in the interest of managing the difficult size of the page. We don't need indication that you have notified editors and projects until/unless a FAR is initiated, although it is very helpful that you did that. Also, if you intend for it to be a notice of a pending FAR, rather than just notes, it should also be added to the "notices given" tempalte. Regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Notes, 2021-03-22 or
 * Noticed, 2021-03-22
 * Thanks for the message, . I did find the instructions quite confusing. My aim was to see if there's any engagement from the last FA nominator or another Wikipedian before seeing if I can put in a few hours to address the problems myself (I may lack either the time or the access to sources required). If that failed then I would start an FAR but as I mention in the comments, it's at least GA standard at the moment. I don't know whether "Notes" or "Noticed" best describes this plan of action. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry the instructions are confusing :( Maybe you can help me improve them?  How about if for now, I switch it to "Notes" (we need to allow time for busy past FA writers before we escalate to FAR), and then you upgrade it to a FAR notice only if needed, after an amount of time you are comfortable with?  That is the way most of us have been trying to proceed, so that we not overwhelm editors who have boatloads of older FAs. We want to try to keep resources focused on dealing with the worst ones, and there are plenty of those! Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Does this fit with the format now? As for the instructions, it currently says:
 * Notified, notes, pinged, query: followed by a diff and date for still-active nominators or Projects that have been contacted or pinged with questions about status. No sig needed, the diff suffices.
 * How about splitting into two things, like:
 * One of notified, notes, pinged: attempt to engage still-active nominators, WikiProjects or editors with topic area knowledge. No sig needed, the diff suffices.
 * Notes: feedback given but no formal notice of FAR. No sig needed, the diff suffices.
 * I'm not too sure what "questions about status" is supposed to be though—is it that you're finding people who can review it properly? Or that you think there's an issue with FA requirements (perhaps based on only a skim/superficial reading) and you're getting another opinion? And then, maybe the bullet points could be re-ordered from "least to most severe" (Satisfactory; Notified/pinged/query; Notes; Noticed; FAR). — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * On your correction, perfect; notice now how the Notes column of the table sorts.
 * Let me attempt some edits to the instructions based on your feedback ... will then see what you think, THANKS! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Better now? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Great stuff, unfortunately I can't go back to before I'd read the page for the first time and give it a test drive, but I think this would have cleared up most of my confusion. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)