User talk:Bilorv/Archive 7

Perhaps you could cast an eye, seems the copy-editing that was undertaken has met with disapproval, not a matter I'm going to bother wading into, but that article really does have some issues with tone. I think we should perhaps look to an article like KSI, difference being latter subject is notable so article doesn't require fluff to pad it out. Acousmana 15:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Acousmana, I've undone your edit because I don't agree with your removal of references, can't see where you explained why and with reference to what source you added jokingly "identified", and your claim that a list of media appearances need a secondary source that states he guested on these shows, lumping them together like this is editorializing and WP:OR is not correct and non-standard in this topic area. Please discuss your changes when challenged, though given that you'd presumably seen the GA review and work that was going into the article, you should have really discussed before making such broad-scale changes in the first place. The right place for discussion will be Talk:Zuby (rapper) rather than my talk page, and if your particular concern is non-notability then you should go to the talk page at the first instance and if you are not convinced by any reasoning given then you can nominate for AFD. — Bilorv (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, no worries, thanks for feedback, appearances lumped together without secondary cite is editorializing, arguably. re:jokingly, see diff "add primary per WP:ABOUTSELF. On "identification" point, sources refer to the tweet "P.S. I identified as a woman whilst lifting the weight. Don't be a bigot. - Face with tears of joy - " Tears of joy smiley is self-explanatory." this ^[1] is the tweet the sources cited in the article are reporting: for example. Happy editing : ) Acousmana 17:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Just saw the Reddit thread, great job on getting the great image onto the site :) DansterTheManster (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, DansterTheManster! According to my Navigation popups this (specifically adding the signature) is your 100th edit—congrats on the milestone. :) — Bilorv (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I've been helped by always forgetting my signature and having to re-edit it in! I will have a look at some chess pages I think. Eric Rosen needs a better page... DansterTheManster (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@DansterTheManster: absolutely. I did a good article review for someone who helped massively expand the now-excellent quality Qiyu Zhou recently, on the topic of streamers' articles, if that helps as a useful model or source of inspiration. — Bilorv (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes that is massively helpful thanks, I shall get to work! DansterTheManster (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

		The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Congratulations! You have reached the milestone of creating or expanding 25 articles that have been featured in the Did You Know section on the Main Page. Thanks for writing articles and hooks about interesting books, TV episodes, and more. Keep 'em coming! DanCherek (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, DanCherek, much appreciated. — Bilorv (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bilorv :) I wondered if you'd considered running for adminship? I've been seeing you do great work around the encyclopedia and was surprised to find that no one appeared to have asked you before now! Give it a think and let me know - I'd be happy to get the ball rolling with a nomination. Sam Walton (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Here I thought they were already an admin :) (t · c) buidhe 06:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding on to the above -- You've always struck me as a high quality editor and I think you would be a great candidate. I would be more than happy to nominate you, if you are interested. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey man, I saw your name at another FA candidate and wanted to ask if you would offer a review to my nomination here. isento (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the message, Isento. Based on the previous nomination, I'm not interested in reviewing this FAC, as I don't like quality reviews where the nominator pushes back aggressively on good faith feedback. I looked at the article and there is not enough of the objectionable content raised in the previous FAC still there for me to oppose—though Genius and The Shadow League need removing, per my independent assessment of their reliabilities—but I will not be leaving a review either, and I don't support renominations made in bad faith to ignore a previous reviewer. Making a heated comment you later regret is one thing, but writing such a nasty personal comment two months later is not acceptable. I won't reply further so don't put the effort in to write something rude. You can have the last word in this conversation, or you could reflect on why multiple people have found an issue with your behaviour. Thank you for your hard work on Love for Sale (Bilal album). — Bilorv (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Lol isento (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

🙄 isento (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Dude why did you bother writing all this just to say no? isento (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah man. Live in the past. Stay away from my nomination. Thanks. isento (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I looked at the illusion. I will remember that you're a human being who makes mistakes. Good luck bro. isento (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I just realized you offered a more in-depth explanation to your reasoning than that source reviewer did in the first nomination. isento (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

	Women in Red Women in Europe contest
	Bilorv Thank you for your addition April 2021 WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, Please sign up/join/participate in the Women in Red project. Register on the home page by clicking on the "participate" box. Thanks! WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, excuse me. I see you are a member of WiR!. I was expecting to see the May newsletter on your talk page and when I didn't I mistakenly assumed you weren't a member. My follow-up today revealed my mistake. Apologies. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

No problem at all, WomenArtistUpdates, and I still appreciate the message and the barnstar. — Bilorv (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I've reviewed the above nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, SNUGGUMS, the comments are helpful. I've replied to and/or fixed them all now. — Bilorv (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, Zuby article has since recieved a copyedit from WP:GOCE, are you interested in reviewing it again if I were to renominate it? Thanks. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 03:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: thanks for the update. I think you can go through the article again, now the GOCE has been done, and see if you don't agree with any content changes or look at whether the copyedit has highlighted any missing content or room for further improvement. The first sentence now gives much more detail about Zuby's music than is proportionate given what the coverage is mainly about. The "six hip-hop albums" creates a conflict with the fact we only list three studio albums, so is there something missing, or is it worth rewriting something to make clear how this isn't a contradiction? When you think you've got as far as you can, you can nominate for GA and I think I will be able to re-review it. — Bilorv (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Great thanks I'll have a read and scan through and dig more into that music/album problem.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 02:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay I have gone through and made a few adjustments and additions. In regards to the "independently released six hip hop albums" in the lead I am happy to remove that given that he is hardly noted for music albums/career. The six albums is only sourced to his website. Some albums like his debut and maybe one or two others can probably be cited to secondary but the rest can probably only be sourced to primary sources. The discography was there before I rewrote I could rewrite it and source it all 6 and others to his website but that seems somewhat promotional. What are your thoughts in dealing with this problem? I could just remove it entirely? Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 02:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: Hmm, since they're independently released and he wouldn't be notable for his music alone (right?), I think omitting any that aren't covered in secondary sources is the better option. But anything that is mentioned in secondary sources should be included. — Bilorv (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay I have cleaned up the discography and tried to only include albums / EPs only covered in secondary sources (excluding press releases to not be promotional) I do however do have one album mentioned in secondary RS but not the year is that still allowed even if the year is sourced to a primary source (probably splitting hairs)? But probably ready for another GAN. Thanks  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 03:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: in that case, I'd include it with two citations following: the secondary source and a primary source which verifies the year. This could just be a matter of personal style though. — Bilorv (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay done. It is now back at GAN if you are up to review it. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: sorry for this, but this isn't a good time for me and I wouldn't want to rush the review or do it to a lower standard than I normally review it, so I don't think I'll be taking this for the second review. I took a look and nitpicked some grammar; I also think The Washington Examiner should at least be attributed and replaced by a better source if possible per its RSP entry. You might also have trouble using this YouTube source—I would think carefully about how you would explain to someone why that source is acceptable in context, and if you're not convinced by your own reason then remove it. (That's a trick I try on some of the content I write.) — Bilorv (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah okay no worries, thanks for the grammar fixes I'll have a look over the sources you mentioned.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello again! Apologies for this super random message. I hope you are doing well and staying safe. I was wondering if you could possibly help with my current peer review for the Veronica Clare article? I completely understand if you do not have the time or just would not like to participate in the peer review, but I wanted to reach out to you based on your experience with television articles. Apologies again for randomly reaching out for help. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, Aoba47, it's very welcome. I've made a note of this but I'll have to see if I have the time as I'm entering a busy period and have committed to a couple of other things. — Bilorv (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the response, and best of luck with everything keeping you busy. I completely understand and do not feel pressured into doing a review anytime soon. I plan on keeping the peer review up for a while, and you can always catch it whenever I put it up for a FAC (which would be even further down the line) if you are interested. Aoba47 (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I would really appreciate your opinion about an userbox I created on request, recently nominated for deletion together with other similar userboxes. The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Qartagir/Userboxes/Fascist. Thanks, Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 00:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Est. 2021: please do not canvass people like this. A representative sample of Wikipedians will naturally find their way to the discussion and if you don't like the outcome then, well, tough—Wikipedia is closer to a democracy than a fascist state, so you've got to live with outcomes you don't agree with. — Bilorv (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

You clearly missed the "on request" part, since I don't share this ideology and I've never put such a userbox on my userpage. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs)`

@Est. 2021: I didn't miss any such thing and I didn't say or think that you were a fascist. — Bilorv (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		Thank you for helping out at CCI. Your help is greatly appreciated :) Keep up the great work! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, MrLinkinPark333. I don't feel I've done much so far but I'm hoping to make time to help out more at CCI at least in the medium-term. — Bilorv (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Bilorv. Would you be able to drop a comment here? I have an IP who insists on removing genres from the infobox. I’ve told him where the info can be found, yet he removes it as “unsourced”. I brought it to administrative attention and got a surprising response. Maybe I’m just not explaining myself properly. Any help would be appreciated. Giacobbe ^talk 11:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@(CA)Giacobbe: I've left a comment. I would always assume an admin is in a rush or doesn't have subject knowledge if you find the decline surprising, rather than malice. RFPP gets very backlogged so they don't have all the time in the world. However, possibly an admin could reasonably find protection not to be warranted yet from the number of edits.

These genres in infoboxes are strange creatures. Perhaps you know this already but a lot of people seem to get very angry at them, and we have a couple of LTAs who target them specifically. I think I've seen one changing The 1975 genres before. (Maybe it's that any insinuation of a band being "pop" or mainstream upsets someone who thinks they're the only person in the world to have discovered them.) — Bilorv (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the support, I appreciate it. I have to admit, it is somewhat disheartening putting in the work to improve articles, only to be bested by an IP, haha. Regarding the infoboxes, I hear you on that. I don’t really understand the fixation some people have with them. I’d argue that roughly 70-80% of IP edits I come across have to deal with genres. It is frustrating! Giacobbe ^talk 11:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@(CA)Giacobbe: It's frustrating, but the status quo will always get restored in the end. The way I think about it, particularly when I'm annoyed that a vandal edit remained uncontested for so long, is that even if the page looked as crap as it did before you started work on it for a day, then that's equivalent to if you had just begun work on it (or moved your draft to mainspace) a day later. You'll drive yourself mad if you think about the amount of imperfect content readers are exposed to, rather than the amount of good content. — Bilorv (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

That's some wise advice, thank you. I just have to have faith in the process and trust that things will correct itself. On the bright side, an admin has granted semi-protection to A Brief Inquiry into Online Relationships! I finished expanding the article several weeks ago, not sure if you've had a chance to check it out. I'm thinking of putting it up for GAN soon once the I Like It When You Sleep... singles are done. I always appreciate your reviews, if that's something you'd be willing to give some thought to reviewing (and I promise ABIIOR is much smaller than NOACF) . Giacobbe ^talk 15:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@(CA)Giacobbe: I've already committed to the limit of what I can commit to over the next few weeks, but I'll at least give the article a read when I can. A Brief Inquiry is my favourite album and I think I've listened to "Give Yourself a Try" more than double any other song. — Bilorv (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey! Not annoyed at you! Here to let you know I got back to your helpful comments re my draft, thanks for those. Cheeers W3005O (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for reverting my edit on Philosophy Tube! I had no idea that removing 'the' before titles was an American thing. Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 14:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

No problem, BladeJogger2049, happy to help. — Bilorv (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations, Bilorv! The article you nominated, The 1975 (2019 song), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Way to go on getting this to FA! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, SNUGGUMS, and I appreciate your comments in the nomination. Only my second FA, but hopefully not my last. — Bilorv (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

My pleasure :). I've gotten three myself, with hopes of achieving more someday. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Woo! Congratulations my friend, I’m very happy for you. Lots of hard work on your part! Giacobbe ^talk 13:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The date of birth has been on the page for months and can be backed up with numerous sources. I have had to deal with many users in recent days on my old account that liked to vandalise and remove everything from pages without a good reason. If the information is there, as it is, it should be added to the page like it was before rather than everything relevant being removed which would make the page bare and missing important information. — LicentiaA (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@LicentiaA: thank you for the reply. Is it clear to you that you should not undo another person's change without explanation, and instead the best option is to engage in discussion? Please leave a comment at the existing talk page discussion that addresses the concerns raised—in particular, by explicitly giving a reliable source and explaining its reliability (if unclear or contested by another user already).

By the way, your signature should use an uppercase "a" in the user talk page link, as it currently directs to the wrong place. — Bilorv (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@LicentiaA: I see that your old account is Srodgers1701 and that you've made some extremely rude comments like in this and this edit summary. Can you explain to me how this new account is a legitimate sockpuppet, given that multiple accounts are generally disallowed? Are you also aware of the fact that you do not own the articles you create, that all content in Wikipedia must be reliably sourced and that disputes about content must be resolved by discussion? If you fail to address these comments within 48 hours, I will start a formal sockpuppet investigation between your accounts, or raise the issue at ANI or another noticeboard. — Bilorv (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop you a note thanking you for the conversation we had at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ashleyyoursmile. It allowed me to refine my position and make clearer where the candidate had room for improvement. On a related note, I also appreciate your work on the parallel RfA; it's becoming rarer to be the dissenting voices at RfA as "no big deal" becomes more in vogue. I think we as a community want our criticism to be as constructive as possible, and I commend you for your work making it more pleasant for both candidates and !voters. Best wishes, Sdrqaz (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

No problem, Sdrqaz, and thanks for your positive tone in reply. I try my best to not come across as badgering and I appreciate you taking it in good spirit. — Bilorv (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations. Very happy to present this especially considering your commited to maintaining the award page itself. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Damien Linnane, I appreciate it. — Bilorv (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I have made some minor updates. But the main one is that the reward amount on Pratt has been increased from $10,000 to $50,000 and there are never before seen photos of him in the new wanted poster.

https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/cac/michael-james-pratt

https://twitter.com/FBISanDiego/status/1384221623880851458/photo/1

This info is in Pacer but I don't have the full documents or web page links for it -

Garcia sentencing is now scheduled for June 15 at 9AM.

Gyi is now scheduled for sentencing July 2 at 10:30AM.

Moser is scheduled for sentencing July 2 at 9:00AM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seeley Booth (talk • contribs) 13:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Seeley Booth: thanks for the message! You can sign posts on talk pages by ending them with the code ~~~~ Everything in Wikipedia has to be published to be verifiable so if getting access to the documents is dubious or even a little bit difficult, I would just wait, to be honest—not much is lost by just waiting for these dates and then updating accordingly. I've updated the Most Wanted poster to include the new photos and increased reward. — Bilorv (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv - Jane Doe 23 got a default judgement of almost $450,000 in Feb 2021. The details are mentioned in the San Diego Court ROA and on the Reddit Girls Do Lawsuits sub but there is no news article about it. Not sure how to give the citation for this one. Would a screenshot of the ROA listings suffice?

https://www.reddit.com/r/GirlsDoLawsuits/comments/mrgkvn/gdp_jane_doe_23_won_default_judgement_for_almost/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seeley Booth (talk • contribs) 04:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Seeley Booth: no, we don't use screenshots as sources. Not every reference needs a URL, so it may be that {{Cite court}} (just giving the court case details) is enough. If you can't work the template, just typing the information between <ref></ref> tags (or however you create a reference in VisualEditor) is enough. I'm not a legal expert though. Either you could reference the San Diego Court ROA (and we'll see if anyone else objects), or the information could just be omitted from the article. — Bilorv (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello!

I'm a university student currently assigned The Polyester Prince wikipedia article page. I have been working on improving the article for the last couple months and am nearly at the end of my course. As you seem to be an active and super good wikipedian i was wondering if you could take a look at what I have done and if you have the credentials and if you think its worthy possibly suggest a change in its grade from a stub? I have added lots of details along with references to support it. If you are busy nor do not wish to bother with this request I fully understand. Thank you for your time! Have a lovely day/evening (depending on where you are in the world :D ) --WaTErMelON690 (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

@WaTErMelON690: thanks for the question! There are no credentials needed to assess an article, though it's best for people to not assess articles they've made major contributions to, as they're biased, or for someone to make an assessment without sufficiently familiarity here. Have you read and understood all the feedback you've been given on the talk page of the article, including in this and this section? I've re-rated the article C-class for the time being, as it's at least that, but it's perhaps B-class, and it seems to me like the volunteers who've commented already are better-placed to answer that question, or explain what you can do to take it to B-class. Thank you for your work so far. (For the record, "C-class" is nothing to do with the letter grading system universities use and represents an article in the top 10% by quality.) — Bilorv (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I have created an article Gullak more than 10 rays ago. But no one has reviewed it till now. So can you review it please.Jogesh 69 (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jogesh 69! Thanks for the request. I've marked it as patrolled as I think it shows notability, though I am seeing a couple of likely unreliable sources (this is hosted on WordPress—what makes it a high-quality source? And who writes this website and what makes them a professional expert?). There's enough there to show notability, but not much beyond that. The basic plot (either as an overview of the show as a whole, or short episode-by-episode descriptions, not copied from another source) would be good. I'd also like to see more high-quality reviews of the show, in a "Reception" section—the writer needs to be paid and the source needs to have a large readership and have a well-respected attitude for factual accuracy. Also, if you could find any of the writers, directors or cast talking about the experience of working on the show then that would fit under a "Production" section. Thanks for your work on this article so far. — Bilorv (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello User:Bilorv, I have submitted a draft for review. Its name is Draft:Consequence Karma. Can you please review it. Jogesh 69 (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jogesh 69: this one I'm not going to review. Have you seen my comments above? I'm not seeing any changes to Gullak or replies to the questions I asked.

There are, unfortunately, 5,000 drafts in the queue and you can count on your fingers the number of people who review most of them, so it may take a while before it can be reviewed. In the meantime, you might want to search for more high-quality reviews for that draft, as these are the only sources I see that contribute towards notability. (News pieces merely saying "this film is being made" or "this film has been released" aren't significant coverage, one of the requirements for a source to count when determining notability.) — Bilorv (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok User:Bilorv, I will improve the article Gullak according to your words. Thanks for the info. I will definitely try. Jogesh 69 (talk) 06:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I have mentioned you in your involvement on the talk page for Louis C.K. and with the user in question and your attempts at resolution and consensus in an ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. CaffeinAddict (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I've replied at ANI and the talk page, but I don't see what constructive outcome can come from ANI. Nonetheless I appreciate the notice. — Bilorv (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Accsued by who? Read the cited source if you're not dumb. Wikipedia is full of so-called editors or moderators like you which only help the spread of fake news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.36.227.27 (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, which I gather is in response to this edit. As my edit summary notes, I was unable to get access to this source, which is behind a paywall online and not available to me through ProQuest, so I was unable to tell if The Times was reporting "some people have accused Abbott..." or if it named such people explicitly, or (as was the case) if the Home Office were the accusers.

There are no "moderators" on Wikipedia, which is written, edited and maintained by volunteers like me with very little hierarchy. If you don't like the way the site works, you're welcome to stop reading our articles. — Bilorv (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Bilorv. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Ashleyyoursmile! 12:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Not at all urgent. :) --Ashleyyoursmile! 12:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Your dishonest RfC did not address the question of whether Nicole Stamp is a reliable source for a joke. If you continue to push this issue without explicitly addressing that, my next stop will be ANI per WP:HONEST and WP:GAMING. I have absolutely no doubt that you understand the vast difference between what's been discussed and the way you are portraying it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, but please observe my talk page editnotice in future. I have asked the closer here whether my edit was a consequent of the RfC's consensus. If it is then you cannot edit war to prevent its result from being implemented, but if you find the RfC closure wrongful then I think you're aware of ways to bring it to further attention for an uninvolved re-assessment (if not, let me know and I'll point you to a couple). — Bilorv (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Wanted to reply, but mobile editing is wonky; would it matter any different considering how it was never an article, rather a draft through the entirety of its existence? Panini!^🥪 00:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Panini!: okay, consider me stumped now. I've worked out that in this diff, I'm only seeing the message "This article, Paper Mario, has recently been created via the Articles for creation process" because the template is auto-detecting that the page is currently in mainspace, but at the time the message was instead a (series of) draft decline reasons. But I don't yet understand why, if that was a draft, the next edit is a redirect to Paper Mario (series), and the next edit is by you. I'm also seeing that the draft was declined at that time because the page already existed (supposedly) at Paper Mario (series), and that there was related encyclopedic content at List of Mario role-playing games which may have counted as the "very first encyclopedic content". A very confusing case study... — Bilorv (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

My thoughts; it would make sense why Paper Mario would redirect to the list, but not much so if the user redirected "Draft:Paper Mario" to the article as well. I'm on mobile, so I cant see the diffs, so that's the only info I can really give. At the discussion on the talk page, Ergo Sum believed it would be fine since it was only a paragraph on the list article. Panini!^🥪 01:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Panini!: yeah, confusing. Feel free to raise this with someone else because I can't really work out what's happened here. But I am nonetheless inclined to say that the previous draft was "encyclopedic content", even if it was never an article. — Bilorv (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Bilorv, I don't mind that you rejected Ashish Chanchlani. I want it to be deleted now. –– 𝚅𝚁𝙹𝙱𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚑𝚞 10:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@VRJ Bandhu: if you add the code {{Db-g7}} to the top of that draft then an admin will consider whether to delete the page according to the G7 speedy deletion criterion. If not then most drafts are deleted after six months of no editing/activity. Let me know if you struggle with adding the template or have any questions. — Bilorv (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I discussed the subject of this draft with the admin and several reviewers, they appreciated my work. Just pointed out minor mistakes which could have been rectified. You can read a reviewer's comment on the draft in favor of the draft. And also read the Draft Talk page. I don't mind you, I'm just sad that my hard work went in vain. –– 𝚅𝚁𝙹𝙱𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚑𝚞 10:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@VRJ Bandhu: the community decided in this discussion (and one prior) that the topic does not suit the purpose of Wikipedia. It's not really about how well you researched or wrote the draft: if a topic isn't notable, hard work can't make it notable. Creating new articles is one of the hardest activities on Wikipedia. I see a lot of new users determined to do so without making any other contributions—that's like trying to drive a bus when you've never been behind the wheel of a car. Why not do some more work on improving existing articles before trying to create one from scratch? — Bilorv (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The more I look into how to improve the article Transmedicalism, the more convinced I am that it suffers from a fatal flaw: The term is too new, with too little scholarship tying it back to older ideas, for the article to be longer than a few paragraphs, probably mostly consisting of controversies associated with the concept. As I look around for material, I find that there is plenty of reliable scholarly sources on the intersection of medicine and transgender identity, just not using the neologism "transmedicalism", often because they predate the term. For starters you have the primary sources, decades' worth of court opinions and medical documents about gender identity disorder and related topics. Then you have the secondary sources:

• Burke, Mary C. (2010). Transforming Gender: Medicine, Body Politics, and the Transgender Rights Movement (dissertation).
• Burke, M.C. (2011), "Resisting Pathology: GID and the Contested Terrain of Diagnosis in the Transgender Rights Movement", McGann, P. and Hutson, D.J. (Ed.) Sociology of Diagnosis (Advances in Medical Sociology, Vol. 12), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 183-210. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1057-6290(2011)0000012013
• Spade, Dean (2003). "Resisting Medicine, Re/modeling Gender" (PDF). Berkeley Women's Law Journal.
• Stryker, Susan (1994). "My Words to Victor Frankenstein above the Village of Chamounix". GLQ. 1 (3). Duke University Press: 227–254. Retrieved 31 May 2021.
• Barnes, Whitney (2001). "The Medicalization of Transgenderism"

  Not a scholarly source, but cited in this book from U. of Minn. P.

There's more where those came from, and I've only skimmed the ones I linked, but for now my point is just to show proof of concept. None of these uses the term "transmedicalism"; they do, however, all use the term "medicalization of transgender identities" (or some slight variation thereof). And it makes me think more what I alluded to on the talk page, which is that perhaps the solution here is a broader article. Either Medicalization of transgender identities or the somewhat-broader-in-scope Transgender identities and medicine. (When an academic term is only ever used critically, that often becomes a way to sneak POV content past WP:POVFORK, and I don't wish to be a part of that trend.) Maybe Transmedicalism would be merged into it in the end; maybe it'd be a see also. That's not my main concern at this point.

If I were to do this, I'd take my sweet time writing it up in draftspace, ideally with some help from others. So, since you offered feedback, I thought I'd check in at this point and ask for a sanity check. Do you think there's an article to be written here? -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: can you explain like I'm an idiot what the difference would be between this topic and Transgender health care or other existing articles? I have an idea but want to make sure I'm understanding. — Bilorv (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure! That article discusses the medical aspects of caring for trans people, involving both medical transitions and more routine care. What I'm discussing is more the sociological and political/legal phenomenon that emerges from aspects of medical transitions: the usage of gender dysphoria and medical transition as an argument for the legitimacy of transgender identities, and the associated argument that the medical aspects of transition are an inherent part of transgender identity, including, in its purest form, the idea that one is not trans unless one pursues medical transition to the maximum extent possible (the idea now known as transmedicalism). Per Burke 2010:

The multiple, and often contradictory, functions and effects of medicalization result in a tension between resistance to and reliance on medicine within the transgender rights movement. For instance, constructions of transgender identities as pathological are rejected at the same time as bio-medical models are accepted or advocated as a means to gain rights or recognition.

In theory this could go in Transgender health care § Gender variance and medicine, but a full discussion of the topic would lead to a pretty significant increase in the size of that article, about a topic that's mostly within a different discipline. I'm not aware of any article that would be well-suited for this content. Medicalization discusses similar topics, but it never dwells on any one example for more than a paragraph or so (although I do plan to add a brief mention there).

Just woke up, so if that's still not making sense, it's me, not you. ;) Just let me know and I'll try again when I'm more awake. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 18:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: okay, so basically about how healthcare and medical diagnoses relate, if at all, to the question "what does it mean to be transgender?", right? I've taken a look at the sources and our existing articles and I agree that there is a notable gap here. I like Medicalization of transgender identity as an article title for specificity and to make clear the link to Medicalization. I can see the potential POV issues but I'd be more bothered about how the article looks, and there are lots of more loaded terms that we decide are appropriate subjects and titles like Virtue signalling (and if there's criticism of the very framing of the topic then that could be worth a section). — Bilorv (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, since you were involved in discussions in Talk can we move it to The Heartfulness Way page since it is more relvant to The Heartfulness way page? Ensconce (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ensconce: thanks for the question! To clarify I understand: you're asking if we should move the discussion from Talk:Kamlesh D. Patel to Talk:The Heartfulness Way? I don't think that's necessary—if you want someone looking at The Heartfulness Way to understand the discussion we've had on notability (which is probably a good idea) then you could just leave a short message at the talk page saying "See this talk page section for a discussion about notability". But we do not generally move discussions away from the pages they were had on unless there is a compelling reason (such as if people were having the discussion in multiple different places at once). — Bilorv (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Just testing how this feature works - hope you don't mind (I'm not actually a newbie). --Elli (talk | contribs) 16:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

No problem, test away. — Bilorv (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Your "revert" of me still left unsourced peaks in the other charted songs section. I was restoring the information with significantly more comprehensive sourcing. I was not going to leave it off the article entirely. Also, the citation you provided for the Irish album peak would have been outdated by next week—the base URL (https://www.officialcharts.com/charts/irish-albums-chart/) will show next week's chart next week. Ss112 15:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ss112: it wasn't clear to me from your edit summary that you planned to re-add this, nor is it currently clear to me why you'd remove the information just to re-add it a few minutes later. Since I thought you were removing this content in full, I just added what I thought was the minimum information required for verifiability—the accessdate is what makes the Irish source fine, because it's clear what date range is being referenced, but I was obviously aware that the citations were not "fully complete", so to speak. I don't understand the current style you have of some sources being in the table header and some in the value cell—why is that? — Bilorv (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I did not think I needed to provide an explanation because I did not think anybody would be manually reverting me so quickly. I revert IP editors who can't properly source chart positions every week, so am used to reverting their contributions outright—as I still believe they should be—and also as I initially thought none of the information was sourced, until I saw they only managed to source the UK's peaks. That being said, the reason there are sources in the column headers and sources below the peaks directly is because the citations in the column headers are the permanent archives that have yet to update (for all except the Netherlands and the UK, which have already updated), and the sources directly below the peaks (for those applicable) are the temporary sources that currently do provide said proof of the album's peaks (same with the second citation in the other charted songs section column header for Ireland). TL;DR if there are sources directly beneath the peaks they're intended to be there temporarily. Ss112 16:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Quick facts

Close

... for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

How to write a new article which is bio of someone? Where is teh option to add new page to Wikipedia? --Ribhuv (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ribhuv: thanks for the question! Writing new articles from scratch is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia, so I don't generally advise people do it as their first contribution. Wikipedia doesn't accept articles on any subject, just subjects which are "notable"—where there are multiple in-depth secondary sources. If you were to go about writing a new biography, you'd need to gather up your sources first and check that it's enough for notability before you started actually writing the content: I can tell you whether a set of sources are enough for an article.

As for the actual process, your best bet would be to go through the Articles Wizard process, creating the page as a draft and submitting it once it's done so an experienced editor can review it and see whether it is appropriate to have as an article. (Only users with more edits can create articles directly, but their articles still have to be reviewed by experienced volunteers and can be deleted if they are not up to scratch.) Hope this helps! — Bilorv (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your suggestions in Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies and User:Peony1432/sandbox. Since the event is now over, I updated the draft for YouTube Pride 2021 using past tense and put in more details and sources. Would you mind taking another look? You can find it here: User:Peony1432/sandbox. Thank you Peony1432 (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Quick facts

Close

June continued ... last year's flowers match the image on the user page nicely, see? - DYK that her last reply to me was in a thread Green for hope? - The DYK set in honour of Yoninah appeared yesterday, including Psalm 85, with the kiss of justice and peace - we wrote that together.

Fourth of July: Brian's birthday, remembered in gratitude for his unfailing inspiration and support - remember the Chapel - the missed - the music? - Can I interest you in a user's first FAC, Carillon? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: yes I saw the DYK set, really beautiful tribute. Thanks for your work there. — Bilorv (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! + more music, a new song about a feast - a dear family member remembered today when she would have been 122 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you today for The 1975 (2019 song), introduced: "One might expect The 1975's fourth song titled "The 1975" to be a difficult search term, but unlike the other three—which are about... um, oral sex—this one has the keyword "Greta Thunberg", who delivers this protest song about climate change."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bilorv, hope you are well. If you have time and only if you have time, I'd would be grateful if you could leave some comments here. Thank you. --Ashleyyoursmile! 16:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ashleyyoursmile: thanks for the message! I won't leave a full review, but from a first look, it seems comprehensive and well-written, though the sentence "Lights Up" attracted debates about Styles's sexuality because he released it on National Coming Out Day and owing to the music video's sexually fluid imagery doesn't quite track (I think it should be something like "... because of the release on National Coming Out Day and the music video's sexually fluid imagery"). Let me know if you take it to FA again and I might be able to do a source review or similar. — Bilorv (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Bilorv. I will let you know when I re-nominate it. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 07:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bilorv, I have nominated it now at FAC. You are welcome to comment, if you would like to. Hope you have a great day. --Ashleyyoursmile (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Viridian Bovary: thanks for the update! I've left a source review. Looking very, very good. — Bilorv (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Martin Sluijter (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:SIDN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Bilorv, thank you very much for your review. I just don't understand why my contribution was rejected, because it is a literal translation of the Dutch page (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stichting_Internet_Domeinregistratie_Nederland) about SIDN, which has been around for a long time and has been accepted.

Martin Sluijter (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Martin Sluijter and thanks for the question! The Dutch Wikipedia is a different community with different standards as a result of different needs (for instance, smaller Wikipedias are more likely to "take what they can get" as they want growth and momentum, whereas larger ones have more focus on maintaining quality, as too large a number of articles becomes very overwhelming for volunteers to maintain). And like us, the Dutch Wikipedia will have too few volunteers to moderate their content to the standards they want, so pages on there could be in need for deletion or rewriting. On the English Wikipedia, by my standards at least half of our articles are bad-quality and fail basic community norms and guidelines. But each of these 3,000,000 articles would require several hours to substantively improve, so it's not a task easily done. What we try to do is to stop adding to the pile of new bad articles, so we can be harsher on new content than existing content. But point me to similar-quality English Wikipedia articles and I might see what steps I can take.

My assessment was completely unrelated to Dutch Wikipedia norms, but about English Wikipedia ones: articles need to show notability, not just existence. Here I'm just seeing two sources that show existence. Where's the news coverage? Where's the academic coverage?

I can't see where the sources are for most of the claims in the article, but per our Verifiability policy, everything needs a source. Otherwise how can I tell this draft apart from the hoaxes that we see submitted, or the ones written by PR companies that massively stretch the truth? Additionally, we have a Neutral Point of View policy. We don't say things like "SIDN Fund is committed to helping build a strong internet for everyone"—that's what the SIDN says about itself, or what an advert reads like. — Bilorv (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)