This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
My further reading link clearly put it under related subtopics and the article did state genetic appropriation which indeed is related not direct. Persian Lad (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Persian Lad and thanks for the message! "Further reading" sections have to be topical, so that the majority of the work is directly about the subject. It's not like a "See also" section, which has limited leeway for related topics. "Further reading" sources are often ones that would be useful in the article, or alternate summaries of the topic (like a textbook), or the most important references in a long reference list. — Bilorv (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Bilorv,
I am interested in expanding stub articles about rare or poorly-studied languages and ethnic groups, because 1) I don't see enough people doing it and 2) my educational background is linguistics, focusing on indigenous and minority languages.
However, I'm worried that adding too much detailed information about very obscure languages and groups might be a form of giving undue weight. Can you give some guidance on this?
Hi Hopeless polyglot and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad to hear about your subject knowledge in a topic that's underrepresented on Wikipedia."Due weight" only applies to unbalanced emphasis within an article (for instance if 90% of English language was about the differences between British and American English). Articles overall need to have references that show notability—expanding stubs (which maybe lack such sources) is a fantastic place to focus attention on.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. In fact it's sometimes even a good idea to start with a source, say a book about Iroquois people, and use that source to expand several related articles on Iroquois languages.One more subject-specific warning: my understanding is that lots of indigenous culture and information is passed down by oral tradition. Unfortunately we don't have the capacity to host such information here—we have to wait until it's recorded.If you have any more questions (or come to any later), please ask! — Bilorv (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Bilorv! Thank you for reviewing Draft:Caleb Maupin. I agree (and wish) that the sourcing could be stronger. However, I think the secondary sources are sufficient to meet WP:NBASIC.
I've listed and categorized the independent secondary sources below:
Of note: The "passing" coverage is all substantial enough to include a brief description of Maupin and a quote from Maupin, not just a trivial mention of their name.
By my count, that's 1 substantial & reliable source, 1 substantial & partly-reliable source, 3 partly-substantial & reliable sources, 3 passing & reliable sources, and 1 passing & partly-reliable source.
I'd love to have a second substantial & reliable source, but I think this already meets WP:NBASIC's guideline:
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial [only 1], then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability [see, for example, the 3 sources (Truth or Fiction, Newsweek, Chicago City Wire) discussing CPIUSA and Maupin in medium detail]; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
I am not annoyed at you, but I did like the illusion. :)
@SocDoneLeft: thanks for the message! It's worth noting that this article has been deleted twice at AfD, most recently in 2020, so we'd expect quite a few post-2020 sources to be revisiting this. And to be fair most of the ones you list are.The passing coverage is all trivial and cannot be added up to meet WP:NBASIC: the descriptions are as brief as possible to establish who the quoted figure is (if you had a name without description, the reader would go, "who?"). This includes TruthOrFiction. I don't understand why CPUSA would be reliable here. This leaves Cleveland Scene and Newsweek, which maybe count for something about CPIUSA.However, the broader point is that these independent sources are not a sound basis to write a biography of Maupin. What was his role in Occupy Wall Street? What is his role at RT? Why did CPIUSA expel him and disband? We have the options to have an article largely based on social media and primary sources, or one with short, choppy sentences like "He founded the CPIUSA; its Twitter account was created in December 2021" that provide little context. Neither strikes me as sufficient for notability. — Bilorv (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Bilorv: I agree with your overall point, that few in-depth or really substantive sources exist about Maupin. Nothing like a proper, full biography exists in any reliable sources; hence the choppy structure. I think this is less of a problem when the article also serves to document the Center for Political Innovation; lots of articles on small organizations are choppy as hell.
With the power of Google-fu, I have added a few more sources:
The Insider source is the closest to a strong secondary source. It is entirely focused on Maupin, briefly discusses Maupin's past at RT, briefly discusses his organization, and briefly discusses the sexual abuse allegations against him. I argued before that the sources were enough to eke across the WP:NBASIC criteria -- with this, I think this definitely meets notability.
@SocDoneLeft:The Insider link isn't working for me, I'm afraid. I can't see myself approving the Maupin draft on the strength of it but if you believe these two sources make a difference you can resubmit with them. — Bilorv (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The article Joan Is Awful you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Joan Is Awful for comments about the article, and Talk:Joan Is Awful/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of OlifanofmrTennant -- OlifanofmrTennant (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Congratulations, on this article passing. I saw that it had been sitting there for a while so I decided to review it for the WikiCub. I think that you could definatly nominate this for DYK, a nice hook could talk about the parody of Netflix in the episode I think there is probably something there. Anyways I wish you well I going to work on a potential GA. Questions?fourOlifanofmrtennant (she/her)06:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Bilorv, just wanted to say hi and its nice to meet you. I will be working on 2 new articles this month and I would like your help. Thank you and have a great 2024 --LorentBerbatovci (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi LorentBerbatovci and thanks for your message! A new article can definitely be a target to aspire to, but you need to build up your skills first.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, 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) 14:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I've had 2 articles rejected recently and it was heartbreaking but I have gathered more experience on how to write them but this time I would really appreciate if you can overlook my whole process and guide me in the right way. I will get back to you shortly once Im ready to go again. Thank you LorentBerbatovci (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@LorentBerbatovci: my advice to you, as given above, is that your next edits should not focus on creating a new article, but instead on learning how to identify and incorporate reliable sources into existing articles. You may find some such tasks (and other appropriate tasks) on your homepage.I notice that you claim here to be professionally associated with Fjolla Beka, who you have written about, but you have not yet followed the conflict of interest guidelines that you were notified about on your talk page. This typically includes creating a userpage where you explain which subjects on Wikipedia you have a conflict of interest about. — Bilorv (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@Nelmar Hades Sayson: are you trying to release a book you have written under a free license so that others can share the information in it? Or are you asking if Wikipedia can host an article about the book? — Bilorv (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello! good morning. About the concern of publishing, IO want to know both, because both recommendation... I consider it best... Thank you, and I hope that you will give more knowledge about the privilege endowed... Thank you again. Nelmar Hades Sayson (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
@Amoako Abbey: Wikipedia accounts are for discussing improvements to Wikipedia articles. We cannot help you contact the subjects of the articles, like the Saudi Arabia national football team. — Bilorv (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Question from Grapheditor20 (20:52, 15 January 2024)
Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Bilrov,
Quick question: I was trying to create a wikipedia page for a woman computer scientist as part of my interest to better represent woman led work in STEM here. I think the draft was rejected citing concerns about including mostly primary references. For secondary citations, could we include LinkedIn and other social media post mentions about awards and nominations? --Grapheditor20 (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
@Grapheditor20: social media posts are not typically reliable or sources that contribute to notability. The awards and nominations themselves, if sufficiently reputable and not vanity awards, can be both: the awarding organisation or some news coverage of the awards will work as sources for this.She is widely known for her ground-breaking work is not neutral and the reference doesn't mention Ghosh that I can see.From the references I can see that the subject exists, but not why she is notable. A doctorate and career in industry don't meet the threshold of notability. Measurable impact in the field or substantial news coverage would. See WP:NPROF and WP:NBIO. — Bilorv (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there. Thank you for being my mentor. Not sure whether you will be able to help me with my issues as most of my articles are in Farsi language.
I was trying to add a new article but upon publishing the article I received a text warning me that my article has been flagged as Vandalism by the Abuse Filter. And the more specific reason given was: use of profanity.
This is clearly a mistake as I have used no profanity in my article. My guess is that the actress's last name may be triggering this filter. Her last name is DIV-SALAAR which in old Farsi means, Great Boss, but the word DIV can also mean monster in modern farsi. Nevertheless it's her last name and I have referenced the book from which I got this last name. Can you please help me? Do you have any suggestions for me? --Pedram1974 (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Pedram1974 and thank you for the question! As I cannot speak Farsi it is quite difficult for me to suggest the right page for you to ask this question but it appears that ویکیپدیا:درخواست_راهنمایی is a help desk on the right Wikipedia. You can read about edit filters on the English Wikipedia guideline page, but it is a complicated matter as the particular filter could have several different settings and each could require a different solution for the article to be published. — Bilorv (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
I would like to translate a page (noted as ‘missing’) - vessel Esther Jensen - into Danish, but when I follow the steps offered by wikipedia, it doesn't appear. It keeps loading. I’m using a phone - maybe it requires a pc?
Hi MahjongmahjonG and thanks for the question! I know that on the English Wikipedia, the content translation tool is limited to experienced volunteers due to issues with people machine translating into languages they cannot read without human oversight (and subsequent serious errors). However, this would only be translations into English, not from English to Danish.Perhaps the Danish Wikipedia has similar restrictions; perhaps you are right that the tool only works on PC. Since this isn't my area of expertise, maybe you would get a better answer on the Danish Wikipedia: I believe they have a newcomer-oriented help desk here. Sorry I can't be of more assistance! — Bilorv (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
@IonlyPlayz2: thanks for the question and welcome to Wikipedia! 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, 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.Your draft at Draft:S.S. Tionesta shows that the subject exists, not that it is notable. The Library of Congress—by design—hosts a large amount of obscure material on almost anything that is published in the U.S. But for a Wikipedia article, we need to see that historians have written at length about the subject, so there is enough to say for a standalone article.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) 17:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Luke V. Lauretano: welcome to Wikipedia! Can you reword your question? I don't know what "locate" means here. Maybe telling me the specific article you are looking for would help. — Bilorv (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have never edited Wikipedia and doubt I will make a habit of it, but in the list of entomologists there should be an entry for:
Margaretta Hare Morris, Philadelphia, USA
(December 3, 1797 - May 29, 1867)
Famous for her discovery that cicada larvae feasted on the roots of trees, her controversial theories about wheat flies, and her observations of water beetles transporting fish eggs from lake to lake. By 1850 she had established herself as one of the country's most notable agricultural entomologists, and along side the astronomer Maria Mitchell was one of the first two women elected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
Reference: McNeur, Catherine "Mischevious creatures, the forgotten sisters who transformed early American science".
2023, Basic Books, an imprint of Hachette Book Group --Lkg569 (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
@Lkg569: welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for the suggestion! I've added Morris to the list and also added the book as a "Further reading" source to the article on Morris, Margaretta Morris. You are welcome to edit both the list or the article directly (particularly if I've made a mistake!), but make sure you rewrite the source's information in your own words if you do so to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues. — Bilorv (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. After reading McNeur's book I went straight to the list of entomologists instead of searching Margaretta Morris' name, obviously, and now I see there is a rather complete individual entry for her. Thank you for the guidance should I wish to make any other edits in the future. Lisa Lkg569 (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Question from Angryonions42 (16:08, 4 February 2024)
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Angryonions42: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! In most cases it is as simple as clicking the "Edit" button (which might appear in a different place depending on your device). I gather you managed to find it given this edit—please don't test on articles (where readers can see), but you can use Wikipedia:Sandbox or User:Angryonions42/sandbox or lots of other behind-the-scenes pages to see how it all works.Let me know if you have any more questions! — Bilorv (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Karinae Nguyen: I believe the right page would be [1] (though I can't be confident with no knowledge of the language). However, I'm not sure your account is even registered on the Vietnamese Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
@Karinae Nguyen: I've just realised you asked about IP unblock status. This is harder to check as there may be a rangeblock that covers a large number of IP addresses. I am not an expert on this topic in the English Wikipedia so it's hard for me to suggest where this information would be stored.However, if you have not been personally blocked and it is not ban evasion for you to edit, you should be able to check just by trying to edit, for instance at vi:Trợ_giúp:Chỗ_thử. You may also be able to get a clearer answer on a Vietnamese Wikipedia help desk, perhaps vi:Wikipedia:Giúp_sử_dụng_Wikipedia, though this would probably immediately answer whether you are able to edit(!). It might be helpful for me to also link that there is a process for IP block exemption, though it may vary by Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I believe you are correct that this account is not registered on the Vietnamese Wikipedia. Although I tried to sign up, I was blocked initially. I'm still trying to understand the reason why. Karinae Nguyen (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
@HolyMichaelGeez: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! You can find some suggestions of newcomer tasks at your homepage. The ideal is to start by adding reliable sources to existing articles that are in poor shape. Every fact you add to an article needs such a source to ensure verifiability—that a reader can tell you've not just made the information up.To film articles, it is useful to add brief quotes from professional critics in respected national publications (such as those listed on Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic), but make sure you use quote marks and say who the reviewer is. Not every film is within Wikipedia's scope ("notable") but those that have received two full-length reviews by respected critics are typically so.This link searches for articles tagged "Africa" and "film" where an editor has raised an issue over an unsourced statement. — Bilorv (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Question from BadEditor92 (14:13, 11 February 2024)
Latest comment: 7 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
@BadEditor92: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Some articles can be made more readable by rephrasing for conciseness or simplicity; some can be made more accessible by minimising assumed knowledge and writing "one level down". Can you point me to a specific example? In general you will need some subject knowledge in the topic area to be able to understand what the article currently says and rewrite it to be more readable or accessible without sacrificing accuracy. — Bilorv (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
@BadEditor92: I would personally be reluctant to edit articles where I felt I didn't understand the subject. I'm a native speaker of English but with my limited linguistics knowledge there are lots of English grammar articles I wouldn't touch.
It's important not to lose factual accuracy when you paraphrase or replace jargon. If you can work out what a sentence means (even after three or four times of reading it), then you might find a better way of expressing the same information.
Another factor to consider is the referencing. I notice Tagalog grammar has a lot of verifiablity issues: it's not clear what source I can look at to tell each fact is true. You might look for references that say a similar thing to the article, and that might also give you ideas as to what the meaning is and how to rewrite it. — Bilorv (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
@Bilorv Thanks for answering. I'm sure most of the article is correct since the sentences provided as examples make sense to me. But it seems like the technical parts were written by an expert in the subject, so that might be why it's full of jargon with no explanations. I'll try to look for good sources about Tagalog grammar. BadEditor92 (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Question from Tall Daisy (04:55, 13 February 2024)
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, Bilorv,
I keep getting asked to find sources for subjects that are usualy completely dead. The question that i have is if i find a source that knows more about the subject but can't be guarenteed. would it be better to add it anyway or would it be best to just leave them out?
many thanks and have a slay day,
Tall daisy --Tall Daisy (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
@Tall Daisy: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm struggling to work out what you mean without an example. In general each fact in Wikipedia needs a reliable, published source so readers can check the fact is not just made up, and identifying reliable sources is a skill that takes time to develop but some commonly discussed sources are evaluated here. If this doesn't answer your question please let me know! — Bilorv (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Question from Generictrade (21:00, 22 February 2024)
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The company for which I am employed has been in business for over 13 years, is highly competitive and has had many third party articles and reviews published about it. Unfortunately however, there is no Wikipedia page written about it. I would like to merely submit a very basic page that other non-affiliated users could edit. --Generictrade (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
@Generictrade: per the conflict of interest guidelines, you would be strongly discouraged from doing so. Be warned that information hosted on Wikipedia articles can reflect negatively on the subject, if that is the way the facts from independent sources go. Additionally, writing a new article is a very poor newcomer task as it requires familiarity with many skills such as referencing, formatting and writing in a Wikipedia-specific tone of voice that are best practised one by one on existing articles. Most subjects that newcomers try to create articles on lack the references to be notable, meaning that no amount of good writing or research can overcome a fundamental nonexistence of sources, though your question indicates this might not be the case for the subject you are thinking about.If you insist on writing about your employer then you should make sure this is clear to every volunteer who engages with your writing, for instance, by writing a comment to this effect on your userpage. The onus is on you to familiarise yourself with the guidelines; you may also find this explanatory supplement useful. If you encounter ambiguity in the guidelines or struggle to follow a particular step, you can ask me a more specific question. — Bilorv (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Forum vs pdf, or which reference to use
Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Bilorv! I am trying to improve the Twin Prime Search page, I removed some direct links to pdfs and out of date information. I now want to remove the last pdf link in the progress section, and find a citation instead. Unfortunately the only citeable HTML website I find is this forum page. Do you have some suggestions on the best way to proceed? Put the pdf link in a cite-web citation, or cite the forum announcement?
MyOrbs (talk) 09:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@MyOrbs: thanks for the question! I would prefer the PDF source to the forum, but secondary sources (not from the website itself) would be better. If this was a world-breaking twin prime discovery, did it garner any news coverage? Even better, have any journalists interviewed the founder of the website or written about the website in detail? There are other websites with much more detailed lists of large primes, but Wikipedia articles should be primarily focused on how the site works, who contributes to it, why it was founded etc. — Bilorv (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@Bilorv thanks! I used the archived link for the pdf in a citation. This was indeed a record breaking twin prime but I did not manage to find news coverage or something similar. I am not an expert in the field so I struggled to find papers explicitly mentioning this (or other) twin prime findings. Seems a bit niche maybe. Anyway thanks again! MyOrbs (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Community episodes
Latest comment: 7 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
@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)
@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)
@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)
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)
@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)
Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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:
A New World (The Flash) - what this need is an improved critical reception section and a few other edits.
Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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)
@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)
@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)
@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)
@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)
Latest comment: 6 months ago7 comments2 people in discussion
I have developed some solutions (use-cases) using Nano [2] also called XNO and I have written an article ( https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.06649 ) 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)
@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)
I have another peer reviewed article ( https://doi.org/10.12694/scpe.v25i2.2459 ) 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)
Latest comment: 6 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GlobeWeaver/Alexander_(mixed_media_artist)
@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)
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)
@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)
Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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)
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)
Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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?
@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)
Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)
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.
Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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)
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, Bilorv. I just wanted to check if added a topic to a "talk" page appropriately. It's currently at the bottom here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gender_dysphoria
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)
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)
Note about article I edited
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
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.
@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)
@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)
Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)
Simon Williams (chess player)
Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
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)
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)
@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)
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)
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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.
@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)
Thanks!
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)
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)
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)
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)
Peter Capaldi awards
Latest comment: 5 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
@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)
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?fourOlifanofmrtennant (she/her)23:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
@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)
@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)
@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)
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)
Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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)
@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)
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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 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)
Latest comment: 4 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
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?
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.
@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)
Question from JohnAdams1800--How do I delete Draft:Graduate unemployment in China?
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 4 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
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)
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)
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.
@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)
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)
Aylo
Latest comment: 4 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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.
@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)
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.
@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)
@Amelia Khouri: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! What you have created at the moment is a draft, but there are several reasons it would not be appropriate as an article. First of all, Wikipedia's success lies in its independence and volunteer work: if you are "notable" (meet Wikipedia's deliberately limited scope for inclusion) then the idea is that somebody else will create an article on you. Second of all, Wikipedia has a "neutral point of view" policy that prevents promotional phrases like: "She gained recognition for her comprehensive and approachable teaching methods"; "she shares her passion for art and creativity"; "This course further showcases her ability". Third of all, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources independent of the subject, like reviews by professional art critics.The draft might make a good advert or "about me" page on your website, but this is on the long list of what Wikipedia is not about. — Bilorv (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
okay then please delete it..(i didn't find anywhere to delete) So basically, I can't create my own wikipedia page somebody else needs to write it. Amelia Khouri (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
@Amelia Khouri: this page has now been deleted by an admin. Feel free to stick around and find some reliable sources to improve articles in your areas of expertise, and good luck with your artwork in the future! — Bilorv (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Bilorv,
I'm the corporate comms manager for our company and have been asked whether we can create an entry for the company. I understand this is a conflict of interest situation, so I know about disclosing hte fact with {{connected contributor}}. Do you have any additional gudiance? Thank you, Adam --AdamAtAleph (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Finngall, thanks for the pointer - it's highly informative, and I am very aware that this will be a lengthly process, however I am confident that the contribution will be worthy of Wikipedia's standards. AdamAtAleph (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
@AdamAtAleph: I appreciate that you have taken the time to research the situation and discovered the {{connected contributor}} template. This is much better than most people in your position! However, I have to be honest and recommend the page Finngall has linked (one I've not read before). This is the boilerplate text I've been using when any newcomer asks about creating a page as their first action on Wikipedia:
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.
It is even less likely that a newcomer will be successful in doing all of this within the scope of a company article, which is heavily scrutinised by volunteers with lots of experience of editors with conflicts of interest and the ways that their motivations contradict what Wikipedia is.In particular it would be a really bad idea to promise anyone at your company: (a) that any amount of hard work will guarantee that an article will be created (as the company may simple not be notable); (b) that any resultant article is guaranteed to be kept (as articles can be deleted after community discussion); (c) that any resultant article will mention or omit any particular piece of information (as anyone can edit the article and negative content is not censored).On the other hand I'm sure you have valuable expertise in areas you are not professionally involved in, and you'd be very welcome to create a personal account (under WP:SOCKLEGIT) to improve articles in those fields. — Bilorv (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Bilorv,
I have started in the sandbox an article, perhaps you can take a look and see whether this article would make it into the live version of wikipedia. I have input several media coverage pieces re notability, however I am struggling with some formatting (the infobox for example).
Hi @AdamAtAleph: and thanks for the message! I have made some rough and ready formatting changes, and skimmed the sources. It seems to me that there may be sources that contribute towards notability, such as the Wall Street Journal, New Age and Reuters, though I am uncertain whether there is a depth of coverage or if these are just routine announcements or press releases with little journalistic oversight (this isn't my speciality).It's not clear to me (on the basis of this Reuters piece) whether IMS is the same company as Aleph or not. If it isn't, the references you have used relating to Taratuta or IMS may not contribute towards the notability of Aleph, though sources that don't establish notability can still be useful in writing a comprehensive article.I have added an Articles for Creation banner at the top that has a submit button once/if you feel the draft has reached the best that you can do, where another volunteer will assess whether it meets notability and other core standards. As there is no shortage of paid editors writing drafts and a grim shortage of volunteers, the wait can be anything from an hour to 4 months, with no guarantee of which as volunteers review articles that they have time to and feel equipped in their knowledge to. — Bilorv (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
The Prince GA
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Bilorv, @Averageuntitleduser is doing the GA Review for The Prince (play) and brought up a question about the prominence of one of the review sites (TheReviewsHub) you used way back in December 2022, when "The Prince" was a section in the Abigail Thorn article. I can see that you did some analysis on the reliability of the reviews you cited and I'm hoping you might lend your opinion on TheReviewsHub.
If you can't get to it in the next few days or so, it's not a problem. I'll make some easy-to-revert edits to get the article to GA and you can get back around to it if you so choose.
Latest comment: 4 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Howdy! I was wondering if you could point me in the direction of what to do to update the page of someone who is dead? The page in question is Timothy Kraft who died around 4 months ago. I see WP:BDP, which seems to suggest a 6 month window, but I'm not quite sure what that means in practice. --GrapesRock (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
@GrapesRock: thanks for the question! BDP is quite a technical policy but it's not about preventing updates to a page. It's about when WP:BLP applies, essentially a policy about our responsibility and additional care to get claims about living people right. The key is, as with any claim in a Wikipedia article, verifiability. I see you've added an obituary—the more news reports and obits we have, the better. But with the obituary you have you can carry out any other updates that are needed: a death date in the opening sentence; changing "is" to "was"; rewriting the sentence "As of 2008, Kraft is retired..."In theory if you have a connection to Kraft you should disclose it, but I don't think anyone will object to uncontroversial updates like including his death. My condolences if Kraft was somebody you knew. — Bilorv (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
@Favoursax: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! With neutral point of view as a core policy, Wikipedia is primarily written by volunteers independent of the subjects they write about. If you must edit about topics relating to yourself, you will need to disclose that conflict of interest. However, the vast majority of individuals who try to add themselves into Wikipedia find that there is not the presence of secondary sources that Wikipedia is based on (e.g. books about them, independent news coverage) to justify this, or that they are not "notable" (within the deliberately narrow scope of the encyclopedia). Let me know if you have follow-up questions! — Bilorv (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
How I can publish an article on Wikipedia
I have founded a new maths formula and it is invented by me only
I want others to know about my formula by publishing an article on Wikipedia
How can I do this ? --Udyan Kukreti 03 (talk) 10:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
@Udyan Kukreti 03: Wikipedia's deliberately limited scope does not permit original research. You must get mainstream acceptance about your discovery among the mathematical community (such as through a peer reviewed publication in a respected journal) if it is to be included in Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello! I would like to start editing but cannot find the edit button at the top right of my page. I only have "Edit source". Thanks for the help! Cwilliamhu (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
@Cwilliamhu: if you are looking to use the visual editor, you can enable this in your preferences (see the link). "Edit source" allows you to see the wikitext of the page, which allows greater control over various template use and formatting aspects, and can be quicker to edit with once you have learned how to use it. Let me know if this doesn't answer the question! — Bilorv (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Bilorv,
my name is Elias and I just started editing. When creating my account, I was prompted to select some languages that I read and write in, but now I can't seem to find an option to filter for languages in the suggested topics. My mother tongue is German, and while I think my English is alright, my grammar isn't really up to par, and I would prefer editing more German articles.
Is there an option to filter for languages? Or do I just have to find faulty German articles by myself?
Thanks in advance, all the best,
Elias --EliasBelbo (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
@EliasBelbo: hello and welcome! Each Wikipedia language version has its own community, own practices and own content, and you can tell the version by the language code in the URL ("en" for English and "de" for Deutsch). Where articles exist in multiple languages, a dropdown box like "23 languages" should appear at the top of the page. The German Wikipedia homepage can be found here and I believe there is a help desk for newcomers at de:Wikipedia:Fragen von Neulingen.If you stick around the English Wikipedia, you might want to look at Category:Articles needing translation from German Wikipedia and its subcategories. These are pages that volunteers have assessed as having much more developed German versions. It is still translators' responsibility to check any facts that they introduce into the English article, which should be verifiable to a reliable reference. Formatting and grammar can be rough and ready as non-German-speaking volunteers can improve those aspects.Let me know if you have more questions! — Bilorv (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
@Maxs9967456: you can usually do so if you own the copyright (by taking the photo) or if the photo has been released elsewhere under a license compatible with Wikipedia (e.g. Creative Commons and NOT marked with NC or ND, but BY and SA are fine). Wikipedia:Image use policy might be a good starting point for your reading. Let me know if you can give me more details of the specific case or if I can answer any further questions this raises! — Bilorv (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
@Maxs9967456: typically such an image wouldn't be usable in Wikipedia. The copyright holder (the streamer themselves if it's their equipment, or a photographer if it's a photoshoot) would need to agree to release it under a free license. — Bilorv (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
You've got mail
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Where on earth are the drafts? I saved the links so I can still reach them, but shouldn't there be a way to get to them without that?? --Naninii (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
@Naninii: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! As far as I can see, this is your first edit under this account. You can find a page in draftspace by URL or by searching by title with the prefix "Draft:" in the Wikipedia search bar, for instance Draft:Example. You can link to a page within Wikipedia by using two square brackets: the previous link is produced by [[Draft:Example]]. Drafts that have not been edited in six months are eligible for deletion under G13, but undeletion can be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13. — Bilorv (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
@Tiisu Sharif: thanks for the question! You might like to start by reading Wikipedia:Categorization dos and don'ts. You can add a category to a page by inserting this type of wikitext at the bottom of the page: [[Category:Your category here]]. Categories should be based on major characteristics, so for instance we wouldn't categorise a famous athlete under Category:Writers if they'd only written a couple of sports news articles. If you have a more specific part of categories you want to know more about, feel free to ask a more specific question! — Bilorv (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Take a university in africa for example, I added the following categories: educational institutions established in 1999, educational institutions established in the 1990s and educational institutions established in the 20th century. However, they were reverted and the reason was that there is duplicate categorization. So i am a bit confused cos i think the categories are different/ Tiisu Sharif (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
One more question sir, a vandalism claim has been raised againt me at that i might loose my account. Is there a way out cos i just realized some of these policies or guidelines? Tiisu Sharif (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
@Tiisu Sharif: no action is needed except abiding by these rules in future. The notices are only used as the basis for blocks if the same issue keeps occurring by somebody who is ignoring other volunteers and refusing to engage in conversation. Wikipedia has a lot of policies and guidelines and we can't expect everyone to know every one of them! — Bilorv (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello once agian, i am creating a see also section under a university in Ghana. I am looking forward to adding points like list of universities in Ghana and Education in Ghana. Do you think there will be a problem with that? Tiisu Sharif (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
@Tiisu Sharif: I think the main mistake people make with "See also" sections is to add links that are already part of the article elsewhere. I can't see anything wrong with your idea in general, though sometimes the only way to find out is to make the edit and see if anyone reverts. — Bilorv (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
; see Talk:Joan Is Awful for comments about the article, and Talk:Joan Is Awful/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of OlifanofmrTennant -- OlifanofmrTennant (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
