User talk:Bilorv

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 Silver Belle Elena! 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)

Bilorv, 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)

@Elizium23: 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)

Bilorv, WP:BLPN Elizium23 (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23, 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, Some Dude From North Carolina! 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. Wikipedia: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 The Rambling Man 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)

@Bilorv: 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)

@Some Dude From North Carolina: 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)

@Bilorv: 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, Cannonmc—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 Wikipedia: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

Precious

Two years!

--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)

@Mondayudowong: 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!

	The Special Barnstar
	For updating occurences of Abigail Thorn's deadname at the speed of light. TucanHolmes (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@TucanHolmes: 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

Hello, Bilorv. You have new messages at J.Turner99's talk page.
Message added 09:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)

@J.Turner99: 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)

@Bilorv: 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)

@J.Turner99: 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)

@Mondayudowong: 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)

Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello Bilorv, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve, Happy editing, D💘ggy54321 (xoxo😘) 04:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

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. –xeno^talk 04:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

That's very generous of you to say, xeno, 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. –xeno^talk 17:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Angelos-Philip M.: 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)

@Angelos-Philip M.: 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. [[Anxhela Peristeri]] 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!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for help ! Cancersign (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome, Cancersign. 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)

@Cancersign: 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jacob_Teitelbaum

Let me know your opinion --Annemaricole (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Annemaricole 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)