User talk:Bilorv

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Community episodes[edit]

Hey do you have any interest in trying to get more Community episodes to GA status? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukie Gherkin: yep, definitely! I'm happy to give advice, review for GA or (when I have the time) to help rewrite/improve articles. Are there any particular episodes you have in mind? — Bilorv (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not looking into doing it in the VERY near future, but I think I will put "Advanced Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" at the top of my priorities. Maybe I'll springboard off that and do a GT for the season! - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukie Gherkin: it would be a bigger project, but I wonder if seasons 2 or 3 would be better good topics to try for, as their higher acclaim means there are likely more sources available about them. High-concept or unusual episodes like AAD&D are better targets for individual GAs, as they're more likely to get coverage. The ones I've tried so far are things like "Remedial Chaos Theory" and "Abed's Uncontrollable Christmas", in both categories. — Bilorv (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's a good point. In that case, after AAD&D, I'll rock "Epidemiology (Community)" (my second-favorite episode, I reckon). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Hammer on the first[edit]

Hey Bilorv, you removed the mention of Josh Hammer's podcast on the First There are other references to it

You ok with these? Can it be added back to the page? MaskedSinger (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MaskedSinger: my question would be, why mention this podcast and not others? I gather that in 2020 the channel created about 45 hours of original programming per week, and this isn't the only podcast they have. I don't have verifiability issues with these sources but there could be due weight issues. What makes this more important than other programming? Usually the answer to this would be something like "it's been reviewed by these professional critics". — Bilorv (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bilorv, thanks for getting back to me. You ask some great questions! To be honest, I listened to this one and so thought I'd add it. But some of the others should also be added. After I add this, would it be ok for me to add some of the others? Should I run them by you first before I do so? MaskedSinger (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MaskedSinger: I don't own the article (or any) so I can't ask you to run them by me. I would still not add this content myself but I'm not likely to revert you if it is verifiable, referenced information. — Bilorv (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok cool. thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom a GA?[edit]

Would you be intrested in co-nominating a GA with me? I've been working on getting a few different articles to GA level and I was wondering if you would be intrested in working on any of them with me, the ones I've worked are:

If you have an article that I could assist you on let me know Feel free to decline, Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant: thanks for the message! When I get the time I can try to do a source search for "Emotional Consequences of Broadcast Television", see if there's anything more I can find, and help you tidy it up for GA.
On "The Star Beast (Doctor Who)", I could perhaps review this at GAN (it's an interesting episode), but it looks like the hard work has been done!
I think The Flash episode would be a bit outside my comfort zone. — Bilorv (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool I'll nom the star beast. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Cyanxbl (20:55, 8 March 2024)[edit]

I have been able to figure out most of the basics but what images am I allowed to add to a page. Like how should I know if it's copyrighted or not and what would happen if I were to accidentally add a copyrighted image. Thank you. --Cyanxbl (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyanxbl: thanks for the question! By default, all images are automatically copyrighted by the creator or photographer. (The same is true with writers and text: I own the copyright to this answer to your question, but by publishing it on Wikipedia under the terms and conditions of the website I'm choosing to release it under a particular Creative Commons license.)
You should only upload a new image to Wikimedia Commons if: (a) you are the creator and willing to release it under a free license; (b) the creator has explicitly made reference to freely licensing the image under a compatible copyright. Except where people have broken the rules (which is dealt with through deletion discussions), all images on Wikimedia Commons will be an appropriate copyright to use within Wikipedia articles. Conversely, non-free images are only allowed within Wikipedia articles under narrow conditions. Until you gain more experience, it might be worth only using images that you find already uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. — Bilorv (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Cyanxbl (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Thumbelina25 (03:00, 10 March 2024)[edit]

How long will it take for the page I created to appear in the main space? --Thumbelina25 (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thumbelina25: if you're talking about Gorai Phakhri, you moved it to mainspace yourself and it immediately became live to readers. Search engines will start listing the page at different times depending (partly) on their web crawling algorithms.
I notice that the article contains some credible claims to notability, such as film festival awards, but it is possible it will be nominated for deletion unless you add additional sources. Good sources would be reviews in respected (inter)national publications by professional critics. Interviews with the writers, cast or crew would also be useful in improving the article.
I also noticed that you did not follow the rules of Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons when uploading a non-free film poster. Wikipedia is part of the free, open-source movement and only uses non-free images under specific conditions that have to be demonstrated. When uploading files in future please read the instructions carefully and don't declare something as your own work if you were not the original artist or photographer. — Bilorv (talk) 09:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Thank you. Will keep that in mind. Thumbelina25 (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Adefila Oluwatimileyin Ayomide (12:42, 10 March 2024)[edit]

How do I publish article --Adefila Oluwatimileyin Ayomide (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adefila Oluwatimileyin Ayomide: thanks for the question and welcome to Wikipedia! Creating a new Wikipedia article is very difficult because it requires experience in lots of different skills. The most important stage is the research stage, where you need to find sources and identify whether they are reliable; when you have reliable sources, you need to assess whether they amount to notability. If you decide your topic is definitely notable then you need to summarise the sources in your own words, making sure the reader can check which fact comes from which source. Then, you need good writing skills and the ability to format using wikitext so the article is readable.
Newcomers should start with tasks that help them develop the necessary skills one at a time, some of which are recommended on your homepage. The ideal is to start by adding reliable sources to existing articles that are in poor shape. — Bilorv (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Piero Mathew (12:43, 15 March 2024)[edit]

definition of Technology with reference ? --Piero Mathew (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Piero Mathew: welcome to Wikipedia! I do not understand the question you have asked, so could you explain it another way? You might want to include a link to the page you are talking about. — Bilorv (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from MrDinglennut (19:10, 15 March 2024)[edit]

Have you seen vaporeon fan art? --MrDinglennut (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrDinglennut: welcome to Wikipedia! If you have a question about improving Wikipedia and building an online encyclopedia, feel free to ask. — Bilorv (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Sujanavan (12:34, 17 March 2024)[edit]

I have developed some solutions (use-cases) using Nano [1] also called XNO and I have written an article ( ) which was moderated and accepted on arXiv. I edited the Nano Wiki page and added the solutions I developed under a heading "Use cases". I got a mail that self-citations is a spam. I am new to Wiki. What should I do? --Sujanavan (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sujanavan: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! While volunteers will often contribute knowledge from their specialist areas, as an encyclopedia we do not publish original thought and you should typically not cite yourself as a reference to avoid a conflict of interest. Although it hosts a lot of correct and useful material, arXiv is not a reliable source because it does not require peer review before publication. Let me know if you have any more questions! — Bilorv (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have another peer reviewed article ( ) published in a reputed journal which was also a part of the earlier edit. In this case can you kindly guide me further. Sujanavan (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sujanavan: take a look at WP:SELFCITE. Since MrOllie has objected to the content you should not re-add it directly, but you could start a discussion at Talk:Nano (cryptocurrency) and see if any independent editors think the reference is reliable and useful.
Also, could you please state your relationship to User:Sushi3016? — Bilorv (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sushi3016 is my friend who was supporting my edit and also a new user to wiki. Sujanavan (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sujanavan and Sushi3016: you will both want to look at the policy on "meatpuppetry" (a slightly unpleasant name but a serious rule). — Bilorv (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to wiki on behalf of us both Sujanavan (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from GlobeWeaver (19:39, 17 March 2024)[edit]

Hi, I have a question. It has been almost 3 month since I've translated an article. I don't believe anyone got a chance to look at it. Someone already tried editing it. I've reverted changes to the content of the original article. Am I doing it correctly? I wonder if it even got into approval queue.

Thanks in advance for your advice! -Julia --GlobeWeaver (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GlobeWeaver: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Your draft was never submitted but I'd recommend some changes before submission. The English Wikipedia has a higher standard of notability than some other Wikipedias, so translating an article is a good task but it still requires independently assessing whether it's an appropriate topic for us.
At the moment your draft does not have enough reliable sources. It says "not much is known about the sculptor", so why is it an appropriate topic for a general-purpose encyclopedia? There are some answers you might give like "this work of his was widely acclaimed by professional critics", "he won this award", "he achieved his record", "art critics have said a lot about his oeuvre". Each of these needs reliable sources so a reader can check the information is not fabricated. And if such sources don't exist then you might be out of luck, which happens—I've created about 150 articles but I still find that some topics I want to write about just aren't notable and I have to abandon them during the initial research phase. — Bilorv (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Translating the original article was the initial starting point, but there is definitely more to add to it in the future. I didn’t want to make modification to stay close to the original content. Is it appropriate to add more before it gets reviewed as a translation? Or is it just worth starting from scratch as a new article? GlobeWeaver (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GlobeWeaver: Wikipedia is written to be rewritten, so it is appropriate to edit, rewrite, add, expand and modify however you see fit. If starting from scratch is easier you could do that instead. At present this would be declined as there are not the sources to show notability from an English Wikipedia perspective. — Bilorv (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from All Write by Me (16:23, 26 March 2024)[edit]

Thanks so much! I appreciate any feedback on the draft I am currently writing about Douglas Miller, Philanthropist, to give it the best chance of being accepted. Very much appreciate any feedback. --All Write by Me (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All Write by Me and thanks for the question! At the moment I think Draft:Douglas Miller (philanthropist) suffers most from neutrality issues and referencing issues. While it is appropriate on Wikipedia to report on political ideas, it is not appropriate to state them in Wikipedia's voice, such as: "Recognizing that the best way to positively affect racial and gender equity for future generations was to begin from inside the halls of power". A Wikipedia article should not be a hagiography but a neutral description of what somebody says about themselves or what other people say about them (and making the distinction in prose is key): c.f. "Miller has always felt a strong pull to help others"; "Miller’s reflections on the inspiration and goals of his venture philanthropy journey can be read in this article".
On referencing, it is important that a read can check that each fact in an article is true by consulting the references, but while the draft has many links, it does not appear to have so many citations that show where each claim comes from. References are also needed to establish that a topic is within Wikipedia's scope—the jargon for this is that a topic should be notable—as the vast majority of individuals are not.
Creating a Wikipedia article is very difficult because it requires experience in lots of different skills. The most important stage is the research stage, where you need to find sources and identify whether they are reliable; when you have reliable sources, you need to assess whether they amount to notability. If you decide your topic is definitely notable then you need to summarise the sources in your own words, ensuring verifiability. Then, you need good writing skills and the ability to format using wikitext so the article is readable.
Newcomers should start with tasks that help them develop these skills one at a time, some of which are recommended on your homepage. The ideal is to start by adding reliable sources to existing articles that are in poor shape. — Bilorv (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that answer, and so quickly. Much appreciated. I have another one which I'll ask separately. All Write by Me (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Marvinsinag (05:57, 27 March 2024)[edit]

Hello. Poctol, San Juan Batangas is redirecting to San Juan Batangas --Marvinsinag (talk) 05:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marvinsinag: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Do these edits address your question: Special:Diff/1215868890, Special:Diff/1215868882? — Bilorv (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Hopeless polyglot (15:14, 28 March 2024)[edit]

Dear Bilorv,

Recently I have been editing some very long pages. I often only have time to do one section per editing session, so I'll do one section and then come back to it later in the day. This results in me making multiple edits to the same page on the same day. I'm concerned that this might be perceived as artificially inflating the number of edits I've made as per "gaming the system." How can I prevent this?

Sincerely, --Hopeless polyglot (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hopeless polyglot: it's acceptable and commonplace to make many consecutive edits to the same article within a day (even dozens), as saving your work often is good practice. Other ways of saving progress include working on a copy of the article as a userspace draft (useful if you have to leave when your work is not yet in a readable state) or backing up the wikitext offline. You shouldn't worry about which of these methods looks best to others, only which is most convenient to you. — Bilorv (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Rajkumar menaria Chhapanya on Rundera (16:24, 30 March 2024)[edit]

दिन में होली व रात में दीवाली सा रहता है माहौल:- एक दिन में दो त्योहारों की होती है अनुभूति।

रुण्डेड़ा (उदयपुर) :- उदयपुर जिले से 50 किलोमीटर दूर रुण्डेड़ा गांव में करीब 457 सालो से रंग तेरस पर्व मनाते आ रहे है। इस साल यह त्यौहार 6 अप्रैल को मनाया जाएगा। इस दिन पूरे गांव को दुल्हन की तरह फूल मालाओं व विशेष रोशनी से सजाया जाता है। यहां करीब 11 हजार जनसंख्या की आबादी वाला वल्लभनगर उपखण्ड क्षेत्र का सबसे बड़ा गांव है। रुण्डेड़ा गांव में होली के बाद ठीक तेरहवें दिन गांव के लक्ष्मीनारायण मन्दिर के सफेद चबूतरे पर प्रातः 4 बजे एड़ा का ढ़ोल बजने के साथ ही रंग तेरस पर्व का आगाज हो जाता है। जो ग्रामीणों को इस ऐतिहासिक पर्व की सूचना देता हे। दिन में करीब 12 बजे गांव के उत्तर दिशा में तालाब के पास स्थित जत्तीजी श्री कलदास जी महाराज की धूणी पर गांव के तीनों समाज (मेनारिया,जाट,जणवा,) के पंच तीनों समाज के ढोल,थाली ओर मादल के साथ पहुंचते हे। वहा पर पूजा अर्चना कर जत्तिजी का ध्यान कर उन्हें कार्यक्रम में हिस्सा लेने के लिए आमन्त्रित करते है। जत्तीजी को आमन्त्रित करने के बाद ग्रामीण वहा से रवाना होते है वे मार्ग में डेमन बावजी को भी आमंत्रित करते है जहां से वे गांव के बड़े मंदिर पहुंचते हे, यहां भांग लेने की रस्म पूरी कर जत्तीजी महाराज की अमानत माला,चिमटा व लकड़ी की गोड़ी लेकर गेर नृत्य शुरू किया जाता है। कुछ देर नृत्य करने के बाद ग्रामीण यहां से तलहटी मंदिर ,निंबडिया बावजी,जूना मंदिर गैर खलते हुवे लक्ष्मीनारायण मंदिर पहुचते है जहां पर भारी भीड़ व रंगों की बौछार के साथ जबरी गैर होती है। गैर के साथ ही युवाओं की टोलियां ग्रामीणों को उठाकर मंदिर के पीछे की तरफ बनाये कीचड़ के गड्ढे में ले जाकर डालते है। कीचड़ के गड्ढे में सभी पुरुष वर्ग को लोटपोट किया जाता है इसके बाद सभी गैर खेलते हुवे महादेव मंदिर जणवा मंदिर होते हुए वापिस बड़ा मंदिर पहुंचते हे। जहां पर दिन का कार्यक्रम समाप्त होता है।

"रंग तेरस: रुण्डेड़ा का सांस्कृतिक महोत्सव और सामाजिक एकता का प्रतीक":-

रंग तेरस पर्व न केवल एक उत्सव है बल्कि यह स्थानीय लोगो का गर्व है जो उनकी इस ऐतिहासिक परम्परा को जिवंत रूप प्रदान करता है। इस पर्व के माध्यम से लोग अपने ऐतिहासिक, सांस्कृतिक और सामाजिक सम्बन्धो को मजबूत करते है जो आज के समाज --Rajkumar menaria Chhapanya (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rajkumar menaria Chhapanya: hello and welcome to the English Wikipedia! The Hindi Wikipedia can be found here. — Bilorv (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edelman Family Foundation[edit]

Hello @Bilorv

I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.

Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.

I would like to invite you to participate in the discussion on the BLP Noticeboard to address the concerns surrounding the section's neutrality and explore ways to improve its content. Llama Tierna (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from IonlyPlayz2 (16:47, 2 April 2024)[edit]

how can I scale down images in a list --IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from IonlyPlayz2 on List of ocean liners (16:51, 2 April 2024)[edit]

nvm how do I caption images --IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IonlyPlayz2: have a look at Help:Pictures. As an example, [[File:Example.png|thumb|center|This is a picture]] produces:
This is a picture
Bilorv (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nvm I figured it out, thx IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from All Write by Me (16:10, 4 April 2024)[edit]

I am trying to add appropriate citations to the article on Douglas Miller, Philanthropist. There is a significant article written about him in 2023 by Pioneers Post, a respected online-only social enterprise magazine, but it's behind a paywall. Can I cite that article, or what to do in cases such as that? Again, help is very much appreciated! --All Write by Me (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@All Write by Me: per WP:PAYWALL, reliable sources can be behind a paywall, written in foreign languages or require physical access. That doesn't affect reliability. Citations can be in any readable format including plaintext, though most volunteers use templates like {{cite magazine}}. You may also want to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. — Bilorv (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. All Write by Me (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from VoeVoeVoe (23:59, 4 April 2024)[edit]

Hi, Bilorv. I just wanted to check if added a topic to a "talk" page appropriately. It's currently at the bottom here: I wasn't confident enough in my read to just edit the article itself, so I figured it'd be best to ask there about it. Hopefully I did this correctly, I would have asked first but I only just saw the "mentor" feature! Let me know when you're able, thanks. --VoeVoeVoe (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VoeVoeVoe and welcome to Wikipedia! In general volunteers need to be bold and assume, "if I don't fix it then nobody will". The idea is that if someone reverts (undoes) your edit, either their edit summary teaches you something new or you take the disagreeement to the talk page for discussion. In this specific case—a contentious topic that receives much disruption by newcomers here to push extremist views—taking a more cautious approach is good.
I would recommend finding some less contentious topic areas as you begin editing, to establish reputation in the community as someone here to write an encyclopedia. Your first edit's focus on interpreting reliable sources is a strong start though. Some potentially good tasks for newcomers are available at your homepage, but feel free to ask for advice if you have specific topics or articles in mind.
By the way, to create a link to the discussion you added, the code [[Talk:Gender dysphoria#Issue With DSM-5 Prevalence Estimate|this talk page discussion]] produces: this talk page discussion.
Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note about article I edited[edit]


I have just noticed you removed a portion of my edit to the IOPC page, and I wanted to apologise in case any of my edit didn't quite reach Wikipedia's standards. It's my first real contribution to a page, so I'm still learning.

Thanks, and thank you for making a dedicated To Catch a Copper page Jollyfacedgentleman (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jollyfacedgentleman: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! It's a funny coincidence that you made that edit today, because it was completely independent from me creating To Catch a Copper, which has been in my to-do list for a couple of months. I know that you added a reliable source but on Wikipedia we're really strict about every single fact being verifiable to a clearly cited source, which comes from much experience of vandals tweaking a number here or a word there. The edit was a good start but the biggest deal is the quote from the IOPC that isn't in the Guardian article. In general we don't quote press releases, even as a "right of reply" thing: we just summarise what secondary sources like The Guardian have selected as the most important facts. My edit was just there to build on yours but is by no means the finished product, and I'm sure the section can be improved significantly. — Bilorv (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Nafisa06 (07:40, 7 April 2024)[edit]

Hi, how can I check the status of my wikipedia? I am writing an article and how can I make it semi protected?

(I have 10 edits over 7 days) --Nafisa06 (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nafisa06: I cannot say for certain but I believe your account meets the criteria for autoconfirmed and this right will be granted automatically when you attempt to do something restricted to autoconfirmed accounts (such as creating a page in mainspace or editing a semi-protected page).
Even though you may have the technical ability to create a new article in mainspace, I would strongly advise you to submit any drafts through the Articles for Creation process. In mainspace, pages can be deleted immediately or after discussion. By submitting an Articles for Creation draft, it can only be declined/rejected but the text will remain available for you to work on.
It is important that a reader can check that every single fact in an article is true by consulting the references, and it should be obvious which reference they should check for each fact (such as by using inline citations). References are also needed to establish that a topic is within Wikipedia's scope—the jargon for this is that a topic should be notable—as the majority of topics people create drafts about are not.
Creating a Wikipedia article is very difficult because it requires experience in lots of different skills. The most important stage is the research stage, where you need to find sources and identify whether they are reliable; when you have reliable sources, you need to assess whether they amount to notability. If you decide your topic is definitely notable then you need to summarise the sources in your own words, ensuring verifiability. Then, you need good writing skills and the ability to format using wikitext so the article is readable.
Newcomers should start with tasks that help them develop these skills one at a time, some of which are recommended on your homepage. The ideal is to start by adding reliable sources to existing articles that are in poor shape. — Bilorv (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Julhasmiah on Cash (14:41, 8 April 2024)[edit]

Hai --Julhasmiah (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Julhasmiah and welcome! Please let me know if you have any questions about Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Minor Barnstar
Thank you for participating in the March 2024 backlog drive. Your contribution (3.5 points total) helped reduce the backlog by more than 250 articles! Here's a token of our appreciation. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Williams (chess player)[edit]


Just a courtesy note to say that I reverted your recent edit to the article for Simon Williams (chess player). This is as per a couple of threads on the talk page for that article.

Similar material has been added to the article on a small number of occasions, but my feeling is that WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE applies and that only material relevant to the subject's chess career should be included in the article.

I've previously tried to start a discussion on the Simon Williams talk page regarding which part of the BLP guidelines would allow the material to be included. Unfortunately only a rather unreasonable IP user seemed prepared to engage with that, so I'm still under the impression that WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE is the relevant guideline here.

However, in the last hour or so I've raised the issue at WP:BLPN in the hope of getting a broader range of opinion and hopefully a categorical decision on what ought to be included.

I should probably add I have no connection to Williams and my interest is simply in relation to how the BLP guidelines apply in this case. It may very well be that my interpretation is incorrect, but in the short term I thought it best to remove the material until further guidance is received.

We may disagree on the central issue here, but hopefully this note makes clear that I have been acting in good faith. Raising the matter at WP:BLPN seemed like the best thing to do under the circumstances. Axad12 (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising this in the right way Axad12 and hopefully we can get some more outside opinions. — Bilorv (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and agreed. Axad12 (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Halaseh-AU (01:00, 14 April 2024)[edit]

thank you so much for being here, i was contacted by people claiming to be Wikipedia representatives who would have my company on the Wikipedia site and they asked huge amounts of money even having a sample done which was impressive, but when i contacted Wikipedia they told me it was a scam. if you like i can show you the draft they did --Halaseh-AU (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Halaseh-AU: thanks for the message! Yes, please let me know the draft as it may be useful in our attempts to understand and prevent scams relating to Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Nathnael kinfe1 on Gautam Rode (15:23, 14 April 2024)[edit]

How can you fully protect this page --Nathnael kinfe1 (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nathnael kinfe1 and welcome to Wikipedia! I've made a request at RFPP for the page to be semi-protected. Interested parties should discuss changes to the article that have been disputed at Talk:Gautam Rode, making sure to present all reliable sources that readers can use to verify the information. You can see the history of edits to the page here. — Bilorv (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Kia Lewis (13:45, 16 April 2024)[edit]

Where do I go to create a new Wikipedia page? --Kia Lewis (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kia Lewis and welcome to Wikipedia! A new article is definitely be a target to aspire to, but creating a Wikipedia article is very difficult as it requires experience in lots of different skills. The most important stage is the research stage, where you need to find sources and identify whether they are reliable; when you have reliable sources, you need to assess whether they amount to notability. If you decide your topic is definitely notable then you need to summarise the sources in your own words, making sure the reader can check which fact comes from which source. Then, you need good writing skills and the ability to format using wikitext so the article is readable.
Newcomers should start with tasks that help them develop these skills one at a time, some of which are recommended on your homepage. The ideal is to start by adding reliable sources to existing articles that are in poor shape. — Bilorv (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tips! Kia Lewis (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Nafisa06 (17:44, 18 April 2024)[edit]

Hi Mentor,

I am having a few issues again. I wrote an article. This is my first article so i've "moved" it a couple of times. Now what happens is when i google my article, the "talk" page comes with nothing in it, instead of the article. I then have to click the article, for that article to show up.

Also, why can't I semi-protect the article I just wrote? I can't seem to find that option anywhere.

Thanks --Nafisa06 (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nafisa06: the article Asif Mahtab Utsha is in mainspace and live to readers. Per Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing, it should not currently be indexed by search engines as it has not yet been patrolled by an experienced volunteer to determine if it meets core content policies such as notability (or if it should be nominated for deletion as out of scope for Wikipedia).
The vast majority of Wikipedia pages should be editable to anybody as a founding principle. Admins have the technical power to semi-protect articles only when this is necessary to prevent disruption, such as frequent vandalism. Requests can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. — Bilorv (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your vote of confidence on my ability to do a GA review :) I thought I had made a huge mistake in taking on a GA review before you and others reassured me. SyntaxZombie (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, SyntaxZombie! I'm glad the review was completed and the article was promoted. There can be a steep learning curve to Wikipedia but that's no excuse for the hostility you were met with. — Bilorv (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Chigbo ifeanyi on Agni (10:01, 21 April 2024)[edit]

My story title is about a rejected child who letter because everyone favorite

Once upon a time, in a small village, there lived a girl named Lily. Abandoned as a baby, she grew up in an orphanage, feeling rejected and alone. But despite her difficult beginnings, Lily's kind heart and warm smile endeared her to everyone she met.

As she grew older, Lily's compassion and generosity touched the hearts of the villagers. She volunteered at the local shelter, helped the elderly, and befriended stray animals. Her acts of kindness soon made her a beloved figure in the community.

People marveled at Lily's resilience and admired her unwavering optimism. She radiated joy wherever she went, bringing light into the lives of those around her. And though she had once been abandoned and rejected, Lily had become everyone's favorite, a testament to the power of love and kindness to heal even the deepest wounds. --Chigbo ifeanyi (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chigbo ifeanyi and thank you for your message! Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that collects non-fiction written with a neutral point of view and references that show the source of the information. Let me know if you have any questions about contributing to Wikipedia! — Bilorv (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from MargeryBlanc (21:25, 27 April 2024)[edit]

Hello! I am a Speech-Language Pathologist with a long research and practice history in childhood language development. I conducted 15 years of clinical research on gestalt language development and my book Natural Language Acquisition on the Autism Spectrum: the Journey from Echolalia to Self-Generated Grammar (2012) has now spawned a world-wide movement. I would love to help bring readers up-to-date about autistic language development. Thank you! --MargeryBlanc (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MargeryBlanc and welcome to Wikipedia! This is a fascinating subject area and I'm sure your knowledge and experience can be very valuable in our mission to make information freely accessible.
Subject experts sometimes face specific challenges when editing Wikipedia: as a tertiary source and a website that attracts some very sophisticated hoaxes, a reader needs to be able to check that each claim is true. This doesn't prevent us from using paywalled or offline sources, so long as someone in theory could check it's true. Experts are sometimes unhappy when challenged by non-experts, but sources are needed for every fact you add.
Citing your own writing is a somewhat contentious practice; it will help your reputation and collaboration with other volunteers if you cite a wide range of scholars from the field. As creating a new article requires familiarity with a number of Wikipedia-specific skills, it is best to start off instead by trying to make small improvements to existing articles in your field of knowledge, such as by adding a journal/book reference with a paragraph summarising it. Rather than worry about perfection in terms of formatting, citation style or compliance with the many arcane policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, be bold as somebody else can build upon your contributions or give constructive feedback if they need to be reverted altogether. — Bilorv (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Capaldi awards[edit]

Hello Bilorv, I was working on Peter Capaldi and decided to fork off his awards in order to be able to get a Featured Topic however while I was looking at it I feel that not all of his awards are worhty of inclusion. What would you do here? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant: it's a good question! First of all the bar of inclusion is probably somewhere closer to "is this a reliable source?" than "is this a notable award/publication?" We want to show due weight and exclude awards that just count internet votes without scrutiny or that cost the awardee a large amount of money. If the award news has been republished (e.g. Variety lists the winners) that's an excellent sign that inclusion is warranted. Despite having worked on a few of these I'm not 100% confident on where the boundary lies: if there's been coverage of the award or publication or film festival in general then that may be sufficient. You might ask WikiProject TV/Film if there's specific edge cases you can't decide on through your own research. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the table was already mostly sourced so hopefully I'll be able to nominate it soon for the cup. Sorry that you werent able to pass this round. Honestly I did't think I would have at the begining of the year. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: I'm glad there was enough competition to eliminate me! I did think this would be the year to break my streak of being eliminated in Round 2, but I'm happy with the amount of content that I submitted. — Bilorv (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from KJMarioGlitchy64 (02:03, 29 April 2024)[edit]

hi --KJMarioGlitchy64 (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KJMarioGlitchy64: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! If you have any questions about editing, please ask. — Bilorv (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for your assistance with Emotional Consequences of Broadcast Television, particularly with that analysis section. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Igari Groups (10:07, 29 April 2024)[edit]

Hello, I'm working on an article and need to publish. once I click publish, can it be viewed by the public? --Igari Groups (talk) 10:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Igari Groups: in one sense, (almost) anything written on Wikipedia is publicly viewable as this is a wiki written by its readers. However, the main article namespace is reserved for encyclopedia content, whereas this comment is in a "User talk" namespace, reserved for behind-the-scenes discussion.
Creating a new Wikipedia article is very difficult because it requires experience in lots of different skills. The most important stage is the research stage, where you need to find sources and identify whether they are reliable; when you have reliable sources, you need to assess whether they amount to notability. If you decide your topic is definitely notable then you need to summarise the sources in your own words, making sure the reader can check which fact comes from which source. Then, you need good writing skills and the ability to format using wikitext so the article is readable.
It is best to use Wikipedia:Articles for creation when you write your first article. You do not have the editing rights to create a new page in the main article namespace directly at the moment.
Newcomers should start with tasks that help them develop the necessary skills one at a time, some of which are recommended on your homepage. The ideal is to start by adding reliable sources to existing articles that are in poor shape. — Bilorv (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Igari Groups (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Syafinaz122 (04:47, 30 April 2024)[edit]

Hi can you open a new kpop entertainment which name is YGQ Entertainment and have a new trainee too. --Syafinaz122 (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Syafinaz122: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I don't quite understand your question—are you asking if a new article on YGQ Entertainment can be created? If so, take a look at Wikipedia:Notability for our general principles on what topics we do and do not host articles on. — Bilorv (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from NotShona? (17:12, 1 May 2024)[edit]

Submariner Service. Spent time in Submarines whilst working for BAE Systems. Do I qualify for a SUBMARINERS BADGE. ?? --NotShona? (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NotShona?: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! If you have a question about editing the encyclopedia, please feel free to ask! — Bilorv (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing issues[edit]

Hi, just to get it straight; in a case of "citation needed" and there is no valid resource material, can that section be deleted off the article and published. Igari Groups (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Igari Groups: thanks for the question! If you have searched for a reference and can't find one then I would remove the unsourced content and mention in your edit summary that you can't find a source. In general all article content should be verifiable to readers via a clearly indicated source, but the nature of Wikipedia is that most articles are incomplete, imperfect and in need of improvement. — Bilorv (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fabulous!!! Igari Groups (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Daniel von Romanow-Holstein-Gottorp (14:02, 5 May 2024)[edit]

Hello my mentor. I am a member of the royal house of Romanow-Holstein-Gottorp. I know this sounds impossible but I am, Id there for like to create a wikipedia page about myself. I am relatively young [ 16 ] and we don't live in a castle but we do have a nice live. Nobody from my family has an Article writen about them and i would like to change that. Could you please explain to me how i can create one in simple steps? That would be great!

Daniel --Daniel von Romanow-Holstein-Gottorp (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel von Romanow-Holstein-Gottorp: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! As we strive to maintain a neutral point of view, it is important that volunteers do not write about topics they are personally or financially invested in. The vast majority of individuals do not meet Wikipedia's deliberately limited scope, the jargon term being "notability", and creating a Wikipedia article is a poor choice for a new editor as it requires substantial Wikipedia-specific skills and knowledge around notability, verifiability, writing style and formatting wikitext. See Wikipedia:Autobiography for more. I would recommend instead you work on tasks recommended on your homepage and improve existing articles within your field of interest (which could be Russian history or modern royal families). — Bilorv (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Satya. p. mutyala (01:15, 7 May 2024)[edit]

What are the precautions I have to take while editing & is there any profit to me --Satya. p. mutyala (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Satya. p. mutyala: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! With a few exceptions, the encyclopedia is written by unpaid volunteers. Take a look at Special:Homepage for some tasks to get started on and Wikipedia:Five pillars for an introduction to our principles. Let me know if you have any more questions! — Bilorv (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Muawiya Yushau (14:02, 14 May 2024)[edit]

Hello how do I create a change --Muawiya Yushau (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Muawiya Yushau: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! The page Help:Editing might answer your question. If not, please let me know specifically what you are looking for help with. — Bilorv (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Akbarirazia (13:15, 17 May 2024)[edit]

Hello Dear Mentor,

This is my wikipedia page that I have been editing for sometime now, its ready to be published. However, it has been refused. Could you please provide me with some advises to improve my page so that it gets approved?

Here is the link;

I know the issue is with the references. Some of the references are ver credible, have I put the, in wrong order or something?

Thank you! --Akbarirazia (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Akbarirazia: I see that you have been given advice by Theroadislong, who has pointed you to WP:NCORP. Can I ask what your relationship to Amu Television is? — Bilorv (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a staff member working in the Digital team at AMU TV.
I saw @Theroadingislong feedback and removed all the spam links within the body of the page. Kindly let me know what else I could do to improve my page and have it accepted.
Thanks Akbarirazia (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Akbarirazia: I've left a boilerplate template about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest on your talk page. It is your job to read and comply with these rules. Wikipedia is successful and trusted because it is written by volunteers independent from the subject, not paid staff writing undisclosed adverts. If you have found Wikipedia useful in your own life then I would encourage you to contribute on subjects you are knowledgeable about but that are not directly related to your employer or yourself. — Bilorv (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from JohnAdams1800--How do I delete Draft:Graduate unemployment in China?[edit]

I don't want to edit the draft (I forgot about it) and wish to delete it? JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from EditorOnJob (05:37, 19 May 2024)[edit]

Hello Mentor.I am new to Wikipedia editing and would like your help in understanding a few issues. I have recently made an edit on "Religious Discrimination in Pakistan" and (a) added some new information & (b) updated the previous information with better authentic citations. But later my edits were reverted and there is no explanation of any sorts. I have no reason to believe that there was any problem with that content but since I am new to Wikipedia, there is always a chance that I did something wrong in my ignorance. If you don't mind it, can you check it and help me understand the problem with my edit (if any) so that I can improve it in the future. Thanks Regards.

PS - I have multiple more authentic citations if the problem is the number of citations, Please let me know if that is the case --EditorOnJob (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EditorOnJob and welcome to Wikipedia!
On your edit to Religious discrimination in Pakistan, Jkudlick was wrong to revert your edit without an edit summary. My immediate thought when I look at your edit is that it goes against MOS:QUOTE, which indicates that wherever possible we should summarise information in our own words rather than quoting it. This keeps articles short and to the point and allows us to write with a neutral point of view.
On your edit to Non-cooperation movement (1919–1922), this was (wrongly) reverted automatically, but I think it violates the neutral point of view policy. Language like the following would be more suited to an essay than a Wikipedia article: That such a view should prevail is quite understandable ... But any one who cares to go behind September 1920 and examine the situation ... It is easy enough to understand and justify the Hindu caution. On Wikipedia, articles present facts without emotion. We can say "there is a misconception that X" if and only if we have a reliable source that verifies exactly that claim (it says "many people believe X" and "X is wrong"). But we don't say that views are "understandable", "justified", dispelled if you "examine the situation" etc. — Bilorv (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying.
On my edit to Religious discrimination in Pakistan, so instead of quoting, I should summarize the content as much as possible. Now I could see my mistakes. Thanks for informing me about this. This would surely help in the future.
On the edit of Non-cooperation movement (1919–1922), my idea was to present the context of the meetings which led to the beginning of the movement instead of the vagueness that is currently present in the article. I put that in the block quotation because it represented the emotive opinions and so I believed would be fair to MOS:QUOTEPOV. It might be possible that for a third party to see it as a violation of the neutral point of view. Thus if it is possible, I would like to request you to help me in understanding this part better.
Thanking you.
Regards. EditorOnJob (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EditorOnJob: thanks for engaging in the feedback. On the latter, the quotes you used are extremely long and I cannot think of an instance where I would ever include a quote of that length in my own writing. Even when I summarise purely opinionated material (e.g. here), I can rewrite the arguments in sufficiently different wording and use only snippets of phrases that would not be neutral point of view to say in Wikipedia's voice. As I'm not a subject matter expert, I don't feel qualified to comment on whether the previous version accurately covers the origin of the movement, or whether that article's status quo is high-quality or low-quality. — Bilorv (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I should summarize the information as much as possible. I understand this. Thanks for taking time to clear my doubt. EditorOnJob (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I'm a little confused by your revert of "adult entertainment" to "pornography". You say that "adult entertainment" is a euphemism, but you may have missed that the link is to sex industry. Pornography is an overly broad term. Aylo is part of the sex industry.

In any case, "adult entertainment" has been used there without dispute since the lead was rewritten in October 2023. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Counterfeit Purses: thanks for the question. I was aware of where the link went. If we mean sex industry then we should say sex industry, per WP:EASTER, but the converse of what you say is true: sex industry is overly broad and pornography is a subset. The point is that Aylo owns porn websites, not brothels. The reader should have that information by the end of the first sentence (not that the first sentence is currently written well). The page is little-watched and an edit surviving for a few months isn't a sign of very much. — Bilorv (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think people understand what "adult entertainment" means, but I can live with "pornography". Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Akbarirazia (12:11, 22 May 2024)[edit]

Hello dear mentor,

i have disclosed COI and my association with my company in my page. please let me know if i need to edit anything else and to move forward.

Thank you! --Akbarirazia (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Akbarirazia: thanks for this disclosures. Lots of paid editors also create their userpage using a sentence like "Hi! I am [username] and I am being paid for my edits to [pages] by [company]" or a userbox like {{User COI}}. — Bilorv (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly check and let me know of the next step.
Thanks! Akbarirazia (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Akbarirazia. Take a look at some of the links in the decline messages you've been left at the draft and let me know if you have any specific questions about anything you read! — Bilorv (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
I re-went through the feedback delete the spam links, added more references to support the body. Could you please revise my article and provide me with a feedback before I do a re-submission.
Thank you! Akbarirazia (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Akbarirazia: the content still reads to me like an advert, like the first reviewer pointed out. It talks about "provid[ing] informative and entertaining content", being "a significant source of independent news and entertainment" and having "been recognized for its efforts in promoting press freedom". Wikipedia articles are based on attributed facts like "Organization X gave Amu Television an award for reason Y" or "Journalist X said the company was important for reason Y", but not on vague promotional claims.
For the draft to stand any chance of acceptance it needs to be really clear what publications have talked about the subject in-depth and with an independent lens (whether covering it positively or negatively). What is the reach of the channel? What is its impact on Afghan or U.S. society (not in the company's views, but an independent expert's)? External links would be better used as references. — Bilorv (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]