User talk:Bilorv/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

This archive is updated manually by Bilorv.

Archive created 22:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Question from JM69420 (10:04, 1 June 2022)

What are some good references that I can use in Wikipedia articles? --JM69420 (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@JM69420: professionally published books, journal/scientific articles and non-tabloid newspapers (print or online) are probably the main three forms of reliable sources. You can take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for a good list of case studies in which sources are (generally) reliable and in what contexts. We're generally looking for something written by a professional with subject expertise whose work had editorial oversight. If your concern is mainly about how you can access reliable sources, you might want to focus on freely available online newspapers (such as The Guardian). — Bilorv (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Question from Mylittlesquare (16:29, 5 June 2022)

how do i make a wiki post xxx hmu --Mylittlesquare (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mylittlesquare: I'm not quite sure what "wiki post" means. Your user talk page now has a welcome message with some links that might answer your question—if it doesn't, can you add more detail (are you looking to change an existing article or create a new one...)? — Bilorv (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Question from MNF13 (20:58, 6 June 2022)

Hi mentor how do you make a profile for a prominent person I work for he's Foundation. --MNF13 (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@MNF13: if you work for this person's foundation then you should not create an article on them. See our Conflict of interest guidelines, which say Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests, nor in the interests of your external relationships. For us to maintain a neutral point of view, we must maintain editorial independence from the people and organisations that we document. — Bilorv (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

:)

		The Wikipedia Motivation Barnstar
		Many thanks for such an excellent list of challenges! AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad you like them, AirshipJungleman29. It's been a pleasure to write them and see people appreciate them. Congratulations on getting Minimalist! — Bilorv (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Question from Kalynda-e-commerce (11:43, 24 June 2022)

where I write for company in which option --Kalynda-e-commerce (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This user has been blocked as an advertising-only account. Bishonen | tålk 11:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC).

Question from Schmid Mark (07:29, 27 June 2022)

Hello, Do you know how to reverse an edit done to a page ? Have a look at Audemars Piguet. Jasmine Audemars did not get married, so the name after her surname is wrong. François-Henry Bennahmias is still the current CEO. The name that stands instead is a joke. Current CBO is Olivia Crouan not what you read right now. All the last changes are vandalism rather than facts. Thanks for addressing or telling me how to get it done. Thank you, Mark --Schmid Mark (talk) 07:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Schmid Mark: thanks for the question! I'm glad you've brought this to my attention. I take it that you're talking about the page Audemars Piguet (surround text with [[double square brackets]] to make a link)? If you click "View history", you can see a list of each person who has edited the page and their description of their edits. Clicking "prev" on each line shows you what was changed in each edit, while clicking the timestamps (e.g. "23:21, 9 May 2022‎") shows you the page as it existed at that time.

From a cursory glance at the history, it seems to me that the edits were not recent, so the best thing to do would be to just edit the page (click "Edit") and remove all incorrect information, preferably replacing it with the correct information (even better: with a reliable source for that info, if the article doesn't have one already). For future reference: if had been, say, just the one most recent edit, there's an "undo" button that would work.

Can you have a go at this and let me know if you get stuck? — Bilorv (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Add Vital article challenges

I think that we should encourage editors to improve broad-topic articles, so I propose an award for improving 2 Level-4 vital articles to GA-Class status. I think that such an award at User:Bilorv/Challenges should be called "broad-cast", though you would think of a better name than I do :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion, CactiStaccingCrane. I am very tempted by the pun though I feel there's a Challenge somewhere that better fits that name (something about writing content on actors, cast, across different, broad, industries). The name coming to mind for me is "Vitality" but maybe that can be topped.

I'm tempted to do something involving each level of Vital, like having a points system for improving any Vital article by a class (1 point for Level 5, 2 for Level 4 and so on up to 5 points for Level 1). But maybe a points leaderboard is a spin-off project too big for the Challenges that could be its own drive or competition. — Bilorv (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Enjoyed your challenges page, thanks for the playground. Per this section I recall once or twice I did a personal challenge of quickly making an edit that sticks on each of the top ten vital articles (italics, adding a year, etc.) and seem to remember that I accomplished that but may be mistaken. Maybe, because of your challenge page and the comments here I'll do it again at some point. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Just did a 10 for 10 top 10 vital article run (small but visible edits for italics, adding years, links and link fixes, etc.). No major edits but a successful edit run (one step of the legendary 'Wikipedia trieditathlon'). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Please, please do! We need more people working on vital articles asap. I've tried to improve science a fair bit, and will improve it more in the near future. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with Science, a pretty important topic to get right, especially in the lead. I'll take a look at some of the leads of the 10, can't promise when or else it'd seem like work, and I haven't read any of them all the way down to the navboxes with conscious attention (what percentage actually do?) but yes, all of the leads of the top 10 should be, as they say, crystal. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: okay, here's my concrete suggestion:

• Vitality: improve 5 Level 5 Vital articles, 4 Level 4 Vital articles, 3 Level 3 Vital articles, 2 Level 2 Vital articles or 1 Level 1 Vital article by one or more classes.

(One article can't be counted more than once; the hierarchy of classes is FA > A > GA > B > C > Start > Stub. You must make substantive improvements that bring the article from one class to another, rather than just being the person to update the class in the WikiProject banners.) — Bilorv (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea, though I think most would improve 5 Level 5 articles rather than working on the big Level 1. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: indeed, but there'd be something satisfying if you got it the Level 1 way. I think there is something else to be done in the field of incentivising people to improve Vital articles, but for now I've added the Challenge and credited it to you in the lead. — Bilorv (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it's better than nothing :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

This isn't that important but I just realized

...art thou the founder of Numberwang Wiki from years past? if so, um, somehow I came across it a few months ago. and did the hunt thing, i liked that one in particular, would recommend thou make it longer, but that's just my opinion. anyway that's it, ty :) Actually_NeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 12:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@ActuallyNeverHappened02: yes, in one sense I can't believe that was 7 years ago, and in another sense it seems like much longer. I think some of the changes to Fandom have broken code on some pages, but it's hard to say whether this makes the website more or less incoherent. I also think the Hunt should have been longer, but I think I just got bored while making it and never revisited it. I'm glad you liked the website though! — Bilorv (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

awesome! i had seen your wikipedia work before, and i really liked the numberwang wiki, so when i learned 'twas you, i had to confirm :) ty Actually_NeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 18:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

British Wikimania?

Hi, thanks for your reply at the Signpost page. You mentioned inaccessible wiki conferences, and I realized I don't know if there was an annual British Wikiconference before the Covid lockdowns. I've attended three North American conferences and one worldcon and they were enjoyable and helpful to and for the participants. Does Britian have one? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anything like this in Britain, Randy Kryn. There are some very informal pub meetups in London and a couple of other places. No doubt such national/international conferences are inspiring and the conversations volunteers have with each other give them invaluable insight to improve their editing. However, they are not accessible to all volunteers even if travel and accommodation fees are covered due to family commitments, loss of income, disability that prevents long-distance travel, or safety reasons. — Bilorv (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Meant to reply then never reminded myself. Of course many volunteers can't make it to a conference, maybe it's one of those things that you should go to at least once if you can. At my only worldcon, Montreal 2017 (inaccessible in part: felons aren't allowed to travel into Canada), the first Wikipedian I ever met in person was someone whose username I recognized and I walked up and said "I thought you were a bot!" But for Europe not to have or attempt to have an annual European Conference, I guess I don't know why not. North America has one, except for covid (WikiVegas2023!, at least an option), and India and Africa hold nationwide conferences when they can. So where is Europe, Australia, Asia, and South America? Even Antartica if there are some Wikipmedians out there. I'm not saying that you should personally organize a British or European Wikimania conference, just that it would be nice if a committee of ten to 20 people coordinate such a thing, in communication and assistance from the foundation at key points. They are too fun not to. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Banned user

That user is a sock puppet of a banned user who originally went by the username User:DJdjPollard15. They have been trying to evade their ban for years, using dozens of accounts. You might want to check out the multiple SPI cases against them. – PeeJay 15:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@PeeJay: I'm still struggling to see where the user has been blocked for ban evasion, or there is evidence that this is the same person as that banned account, but in any case I have taken responsibility for the minor change, which I substantially transformed into my own writing prior to being made aware of these alleged connections to a banned account. — Bilorv (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

This new user has not been blocked yet, but it's a clear case of ban evasion. The username follows a similar format to their most recent socks and the edit summaries are almost verbatim. They also tend to target the same articles whenever they come back. The Butterfly (TV series) page is a new one, it seems, but it's definitely the same person. The SPI investigation will prove that. – PeeJay 15:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Question from RMJINMYJHJMVJK (12:19, 9 July 2022)

Hi, I wanted to know how to insert or upload a video to an article --RMJINMYJHJMVJK (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi RMJINMYJHJMVJK! The answer to your question is: in most cases, you can't. Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute, with rare exceptions, and videos are copyrighted by default by the person who filmed it, or the production company, or whoever else may own it. If somebody has released a video under a free license then we can sometimes use it with attribution on Wikimedia Commons. Very, very occasionally it can be appropriate to show short snippets of a video as fair use.

If this doesn't answer your question, tell me the specific video and article context and I can evaluate whether we can use it. — Bilorv (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Question from Muaz11 on Ahmed Deedat (13:50, 10 July 2022)

Rabbiif yaa qulqqulloofnu --Muaz11 (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Muaz11: hi! Do you have a question? — Bilorv (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Also help?

I actually needed some help to edit the notes section in the List of accolades received by Avengers:Infinity war. Other than that The page is completed. This is my first time creating a page, so I'm somewhat unskilled. Thank you for your suggestion. I would use the draft page next time. Shiraj chandra (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Shiraj chandra: Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so we wouldn't use it between reference tags as a "Note". When we do create Wikipedia links to articles, it's by enclosing the article title within double brackets, such as [[elephant]] (producing: elephant) or [[elephant|click here to see an elephant!]] (producing: click here to see an elephant!).

I'm not sure what your intention is with the text "Avengers:Infinity War was the first superhero film to gross over 2 billion dollars,the highest grossing film of 2018 and it kept record for being the highest grossing superhero film of all time until 2019.", currently in the "Notes" section. Notes are just another type of footnote like "References" and there isn't generally text within the section, just footnotes. — Bilorv (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I saw a note in the endgame accolades article. So i just assumed that notes would be something about the achievements of that particular film Or some facts. Shiraj chandra (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for bothering you so much. Shiraj chandra (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Shiraj chandra: No problem—please, ask away! I know Wikipedia has a very steep learning curve. I've removed the "Notes" section as it seems it's not required in this instance. — Bilorv (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Shiraj chandra (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Another video issue

I recently uploaded a clip of the angiogram scene from The Exorcist to put in that article as it's the subject of multiple instances of sourced commentary. I also created and uploaded English subtitles, but they're not showing up in the video even when selected. What am I doing wrong? Am I doing anything wrong? Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: hmm, this is a strange one. I can't tell what the issue is, which indicates to me that it's not on your end. Incidentally, does a video of length 2:39 really meet WP:NFCCP#3(b)? That's a huge amount for only two paragraphs of sourced commentary. For non-free music audio, 30 seconds (or 10%, whichever is less) is the general cutoff. I think the video would show the same amount of information if it was cut to the portion from 1:25 to 2:05 (the actual angiogram), and I think you could get across the point you want to show with 30 seconds of the clip. — Bilorv (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, one of the points is that it's been praised by medical professionals as one of the most realistic portrayals of a medical procedure in a popular film, performed by a real doctor, nurse and radiological tech (famously convicted of murder several years later, another reason to have him in that scene as it's discussed elsewhere in the article), an aspect discussed in the section under "production", so I believe it important to show the prep as well.

I'm aware of the standard for audio music and have followed it with the clips I included in "Aja", and "FM (No Static At All)" for instance, but we have as yet not come up with any standard for film clips. And for that I think that 30 seconds is just plain too little. I included the whole cerulean sweater speech from The Devil Wears Prada because there's just no way to adequately deal with it in less than 30 seconds, and since the whole thing is a little longer than a minute and a half, I think we're OK). Daniel Case (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I can see your point, and perhaps you can see mine, but I guess this is a matter for a bigger discussion one day if there ever prove to be enough good case studies to think about making some general policy/guideline. That's very interesting background on Bateson, so I've got a good fact the next time somebody talks about The Exorcist. — Bilorv (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Question from আসাদগেটের আঁতেল on Cymbopogon (16:18, 18 July 2022)

I want to add lemon Grass flower picture. How ? --আসাদগেটের আঁতেল (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@আসাদগেটের আঁতেল: firstly, you can only upload photos to Wikipedia that you have photographed yourself. Are you looking to add a photo of a lemongrass flower that you have taken? — Bilorv (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Lemon Grass flower picture

Yes. Yesterday I took it. 27.147.201.33 (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, great! In that case, you have to upload the image to Wikimedia Commons through this process and be ready to release it under a free license so that others can republish it. After you've uploaded the image, it should give you some wikicode that looks something like: [[File:Example.jpg|thumb|An example image]] that will tell you how to add the image to an article. — Bilorv (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Question from Rln2700 (08:02, 30 July 2022)

I have severe difficulties in getting formulas right.

I started off by pasting the Libreoffice math stuff, but it made wiki choke. Then, it seems, some kind person helped me out on half of the formula.

I then thought, that I'd got the picture, but NO, the formula crashed as a whole. Now, it seems, it has just been removed - OK - I found a work around by importing images ...

My question really is: will "you" provide a filter to import LO math ???

Ps. The "battlefield" is the Trachtenberg System page

--Rln2700 (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Rln2700: take a look at Help:Displaying a formula. Most of our maths formatting can be done by writing LaTeX formulae between "math" tags e.g. <math>2^{10}=1024=\frac{2^{20}}{2^{10}}</math> produces: $2^{10}=1024={\frac {2^{20}}{2^{10}}}$. I can see that you have used images as a workaround, but your image File:Proof method 3-2.png still has a large number of formatting errors: for instance, the asterisk should be a proper $\times$ symbol (\times), "hvis" should not be part of the text (not sure what this means) and "div" and "mod" should not be in italics if they are the names of functions (\div produces ${\text{div}}$).


I believe that LibreOffice uses a pseudo-LaTeX system without the backslashes e.g. sum 2^{-i times 3} produces $\sum 2^{-i\times 3}$. I do not know if you can paste LibreOffice maths text as markup into another text processor. You would be better writing in Wikipedia directly, in a sandbox page like User:Rln2700/sandbox, so that you can regularly save your changes without them going live with formatting errors on the page you are writing for. You can then copy the wikitext over to Trachtenberg system when you have perfected it.


With regards to the changes that have been made to the article Trachtenberg system by other volunteers, clicking "View history" will take you to this page where you can see all of the versions of the page that have ever existed, what was changed between each version, by who and with what edit summary. — Bilorv (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Thx again. I have No clue - WHAT so ever - on how to provide an import filter from LO math to Wiki. And, yes of course, I did look i to the help pages, but I could not reach the goal. I think I'll stick to the image - at LEAST it works for me. Thx for your effort! Rln2700 (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Question from Rln2700 (11:17, 30 July 2022)

Hi! THX But my question was just: My question really is: will "you" provide a filter to import LO math ??? --Rln2700 (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Rln2700: I'm a volunteer just as you are. Will you provide a framework to import maths from LibreOffice? You're welcome to write one, if this is technically possible (it may require support on LibreOffice's end—I don't know). But I'm not sure that there would be a large use case for Wikipedians as a whole. It may not be common for volunteers to write in LibreOffice and then copy it into Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello! I appreciate your hyper-quick reviewing of Eveless Eden. Also, thanks for the constructive comments. I'll keep those in mind for the next book page I create. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@MarchOfTheGreyhounds: no problem! I write a lot of articles on books myself, and it's nice to see a 20th century book article, too. It was a quick approval because the book reviews from very well-known sources and prize shortlisting are a slum dunk under WP:NBOOK#1 (and because I happened to click on the queue at the right moment for it). — Bilorv (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Bilorv. I'm trying to write articles for all books shortlisted for the Women's Prize for Fiction since its inception. I thought that just being shortlisted for the award doesn't make a book notable, but I'm finding the majority easily meet NBOOK through their reviews anyway. I'll keep plugging away and try to learn as I go. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

NPP drive award

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		This award is given to Bilorv for 53 reviews and 5 re-reviews in the July NPP backlog reduction drive. Your contributions played a part in the 9895 reviews that took place during the drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

]

The full context in which the Dan Schneider anecdote appears.

This might be useful. Aresef (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Aresef. — Bilorv (talk) 08:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Don't Pay UK

On 18 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Don't Pay UK, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Don't Pay UK plan to encourage UK households to cancel their energy bill payments on 1 October 2022 if their pledge reaches 1 million signatures? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Don't Pay UK. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Don't Pay UK), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 11,492 views (478.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of August 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Question from Bkaramanaj (10:14, 19 August 2022)

Hey, thanks for the gesture.

Just joined Wikipedia today as I didn't know there was a sign-up option here.

Should I start by creating my user profile before suggesting any edits? Or, it is not a must? --Bkaramanaj (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bkaramanaj: thanks for the question(s)! You don't have to create a userpage at all—some of our most active volunteers choose not to have one—and if you do, you can make it as elaborate or simple as you want (like "Hi! I am interested in articles on geography and photography").

One small point is that we don't suggest edits: we generally just make them directly. You should be bold on Wikipedia—if you think something can be improved then do it. Live by the assumption that no-one will do it if you don't. If someone reverts (undoes) your edit then you've learned a new rule for next time; if not, your edit was probably an improvement. You've got to develop a bit of a thick skin to be bold, because there is a learning curve and your edits are sometimes not an improvement. It happens to me still, and I've been here over 8 years, but I try to thank people when they undo my edit and teach me a new rule in the process.

Let me know if you've got any more questions! — Bilorv (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Help neutralise Manchester Pride article

Hi there - I noticed that the Manchester Pride article is looking promotional and has done for a while now. I know you're probably busy, but anything you could do to neutralise/improve the article would be much appreciated! Thanks QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, QueenofBithynia. I can see a number of issues with the article, though I wouldn't necessarily characterise it primarily as promotional—perhaps informal and not in Wikipedia's style. I don't think I'll have the chance to take this on myself, but I would focus on: cutting out modern logistics comments like Pedestrian right of way through the Village streets is still allowed but no unauthorised vehicles can pass through while the road closures are in place, bringing a bigger historical focus and focus on the organisation of the event, and adding comments on reception—including criticism (for instance, I can't imagine that there haven't been complaints from the local gay community about the commercialisation and de-politicisation of the event). Everything should be sourced, of course. — Bilorv (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Question from ZkEstelle (12:18, 28 August 2022)

I'm a research manager for a decentralized finance think tank. We focus our efforts mainly in the areas of decentralized derivative and spot market design. It was recently brought to my attention some Wikis have been formed introducing concepts from our field and I'd like to help this aim long term. In particular, I want to help strengthen the arguments on the existing articles and create new articles for topics not covered yet, but I want to approach this properly. Is there a particular methodology to editing wikis and create new ones that maintains a sort of consistency? --ZkEstelle (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@ZkEstelle: the first thing is that you must declare any professional or personal conflicts of interest if you want to edit in related areas. If editing an article about, say, a company you work for, a rival company or a technology promoted by your company, then you shouldn't edit articles directly, but you can leave edit requests on the talk page of the related article with an exact description of what text should be added, removed or changed, with all the appropriate reliable sources.

In general, when editing in areas of interest that you have no professional connection to, we encourage people to be bold—don't ask someone else to fix it, because it's your job to if you spot it. If your edit is reverted then you learn something, and otherwise it's probably made the article better. Over time you might absorb more of the Manual of Style and notability policies and so on, but you don't need to know it all to make a start.

Let me know if you have any more specific questions! — Bilorv (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply

Thank you for replying and letting me know your thoughts on the my son hunter talk page. We'll see how that article shapes up. You know my feelings on it, and I hope you also know that as long as it stays up, I will do my best to make sure it is a good article, written from a neutral point of view, and adheres to all the wiki rules (that I know of) -- and I have no doubt that you'll do the same. Thanks again & best wishes, BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Question on birthdays

I have a general question that arises from a specific issue, you reverted my Rachel Parris edit where I added her birthday for lack of reliable source, I can prove it's her birthday through her and her husband's tweets about such date but my question is, how does one verify anyone's birthdays on Wikipedia? Would it be through their own/agent's websites? What if they don't have one? Are there other ways to verify?

Thanks 😄 LordEdsi (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@LordEdsi: thanks for the question! It's a good one. All information on Wikipedia should be previously published in a reliable source. This is because readers should check the facts against the reliable sources given when they don't believe us (as they shouldn't!), and remove problematic content accordingly.

I'm dubious about "proof" of somebody's birthday via Tweets as I've seen a lot of cases where a celebrity Tweets "my 30th birthday today" with a picture of cake and it contradicts another source, like themselves 2 years ago or a news article or so on. You'd be surprised by some of the cases I've seen where two seemingly unambiguous statements by the person themselves can't both be true. On this topic in particular I've found that news articles will copy our content without attribution and then someone will add it to Wikipedia as a source. Unfortunately, many birthdays we have in existing articles are wrong, but we often can't tell which ones, so I err strongly on the side of removal. A reader is not entitled to know somebody's birthday, and some high-profile people keep it private, which must be respected.

Since you have still not given a reliable source, you should undo your edit here, and I'm more than happy to continue discussion over what you now think based on the sources you have found and the information I've just given. — Bilorv (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the reply, a kind user has linked me what I believe to be a reliable source for this specific case from comedy.co.uk, I have added it as a reference [2] but I'm quite new to this so I may have added it unsatisfactorily but it's better than nothing, keep up the good work LordEdsi (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@LordEdsi: you don't look to have edited Rachel Parris since this edit, so I'm not sure what you mean. British Comedy Guide is generally a reliable source, so it seems like a good find. — Bilorv (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Talking about this edit, re-added the birthday and added a reference- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1107557302 LordEdsi (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake LordEdsi, I just didn't see the reference in the changes. It's perfectly sufficient (reference formatting is not a priority for a new user), but I've expanded the citation a bit and moved them from the infobox to the prose here. — Bilorv (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Question from DavidFinFro (17:21, 6 September 2022)

Hi Bilorv,

Thanks for being my mentor. Please may I ask for spme advice/help?

I amended the Wikipedia page for Malcolm Offord (The Lord Offord of Garvel), currently Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

There is a link from Offord's page to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland Wikipedia page. I would like to make 2 edits:

a) change his photo on the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland page so that they match the photo on his page, and b) amend the external links.

Am I allowed to do this, or do I need to ask the page creator or editor to do it for me?

How do I sandbox to make sure that I do not make a mess of the page?

Thanks for your advice,

Kind regards,

David --DavidFinFro (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi DavidFinFro and thanks for the questions! The general rule on Wikipedia is: if you see a problem, fix it yourself. There often isn't anyone there who can do it for you. No-one owns an article, even if they created and wrote all of it. However, the flip side to being bold is that people will undo your edits, and that's not a personal slight. If you make an edit and it sticks, you've improved Wikipedia; if it's reverted, you've learned something about editing.

In this case, though, I'm not sure why we use File:Lord Offord of Garvel.png at Malcolm Offord as I prefer File:Official portrait of Lord Offord of Garvel, 2021.jpg. Its advantages are: being an official portrait; not having distracting lighting; being cropped to just the head and upper body; and it's slightly higher resolution (but neither are great). I would honestly make the change the other way around.

As for the external links, check out Wikipedia:External links. In general, less is more, and official links only is the norm (though these sections sometimes accumulate cruft). If you tell me more about the specific links, however, I might have a more specific opinion. — Bilorv (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bilorv,

Thank you for your reply and guidance. I'll lave the entry as is - File:Lord Offord of Garvel.png at Malcolm Offord is taken from the gov.uk page relating to his being elevated to the House of Lords so I would like to keep it in place (as I know that he prefers it. The photo I shall leave, as to change it would make the page less consistent.

For the link - I would like to use https://www.thenational.scot/news/19644355.new-scotland-office-minister-malcolm-offord-given-official-lords-title/ rather than the current one, https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/unelected-millionaire-dogged-by-cronyism-accusations-given-peerage-and-scottish-ministerial-role-by-uk-government-3403116.

I noted that his is the only entry with external links. Unless there is a compelling reason for keeping them, could I just remove them?

Thanks,

David DavidFinFro (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@DavidFinFro: if you have a personal connection to Malcolm Offord (which is how I read I know that he prefers it) then you must disclose this conflict of interest and familiarise yourself with the rules of conduct. It is not unpaid volunteers' responsibility to inform people of these.

What you refer to are, in Wikipedia jargon, "references" in the article, whereas "external links" refer to links to pages outside Wikipedia that are not references. No doubt Offord would prefer to remove a link titled Unelected millionaire dogged by 'cronyism' accusations given peerage and Scottish ministerial role by UK Government. However, it is not his job or the job of anybody with a personal connection to him to decide that we cannot republish information from The Scotsman, a reliable source. — Bilorv (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Thanks for your guidance. I do not know Malcolm Offord personally, nor am I paid to update his page - I admire him, know of him and have followed him as a philanthropist. My knowledge of his preference (maybe that is too strong a word) is via a friend-of-a-friend, there is no direct connection. To keep the record straight I have added a COI template to my user page explaining this - please let me know if I need to do more.

Both articles mention cronyism, the second has more biographical detail - that was my only reason for wanting to amend it. I could add it as a third link, or would that be too much?

Again - I appreciate your guidance and apologise for any missteps. DavidFinFro (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@DavidFinFro: thanks for clarifying the situation. If the photo request originates from Offord then I think that is still enough that the spirit of conflict of interest applies. When I've been in contact with article subjects and they've expressed preferences, I've generally put it on the article talk page as a record and let others comment, though Talk:Malcolm Offord may not get such attention.

Anyway, adding another reference should be uncontroversial, but I wouldn't remove what is there. A reasonable-quality article might have 50 or 100 references. But many articles on Wikipedia are in dire need of attention. — Bilorv (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bilorv - thank you. I understand where you are coming from and I'll add a record. Is it sufficient if I just copy over the Conflict of Interest wording from my page and add a new section to Talk:Malcolm Offord ? If so, I'll get that sorted. At the same time, I'll add the link.

I very much appreciate your guidance on this. DavidFinFro (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@DavidFinFro: yep, that sounds good! — Bilorv (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

GirlsDoPorn Update

FBI added Pratt to the Ten Most Wanted Fugitives List and increased the reward for him up to $100,000. Please add the new wanted poster and details.

https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/michael-james-pratt/@@download.pdf

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/michael-james-pratt-named-to-ten-most-wanted-fugitives-list-090722

https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/michael-james-pratt Seeley Booth (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Seeley Booth: thanks for the information. I have made this edit to the article. — Bilorv (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Question from Jedidiahosoba (10:05, 9 September 2022)

Hello Bilorv, I am new here and trying to put up a biography. Is there anyway you can help? --Jedidiahosoba (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jedidiahosoba: you might start with Wikipedia:My first article. My first piece of advice would be: don't. Starting with one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia (creating a new article) is less preferable than first learning how to improve existing articles, such as by adding reliable sources.

My second piece of advice would be: if you have a personal connection to the topic you are writing about, definitely don't. You must read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest in this case, but Wikipedia has been built by a community of volunteers that are independent from the subjects they write about, and it is only this that gives us any right to a reputation for being uncensored.

My third piece of advice would be: when it is the time to write your first article, the research phase must be the longest and most important part. Searching for references that show notablility is the fundamental task. I regularly plan to write an article on a topic and realise that it is not notable because not enough sources exist. In this case, it doesn't matter how hard I work, the topic is not notable for factors outside my control and Wikipedia will not host an article on it. — Bilorv (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this. I had one article that got deleted some time ago. I couldn’t identify why it was deleted. Is there any way I can share that with you? Jedidiahosoba (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jedidiahosoba: if you tell me the exact name of the article (including capitalisation) then I could gain some insight. Otherwise I can't tell, but we may be able to consult an admin, a volunteer who can see the history of deleted pages. — Bilorv (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

LYMPHY DRAINAGE THERAPY

It is a biography about Dr Bruno Chikly.

Thank you very much. Jedidiahosoba (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jedidiahosoba: I meant that the capitalisation should match what you used in the article, but I can't find a record of "Lymphy drainage therapy", "Lymphy Drainage Therapy" or "LYMPHY DRAINAGE THERAPY" existing as an article or a draft at any point in time. Looking at User:Jedidiahosoba/sandbox, I presume something like what the other article/draft you wrote was, I can see that this could be uncontroversially deleted as an article because there are no reliable sources to establish notability. — Bilorv (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I’d work on a new one and share with you before I publish. Can this be done? Jedidiahosoba (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jedidiahosoba: yes, you can say on my talk page (this page) and either provide an internal link by writing the page title in double square brackets [[like this]] or I could just search in your contributions directly. — Bilorv (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, this has been so helpful. I'd get to work right away Jedidiahosoba (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Question from Rln2700 (08:40, 11 September 2022)

Hello again, Following our previous conversation I escaped formula writing by using images with my proofs.

2 questions:

  1. Is it possible to delete a previously uploaded image ?
  2. Is it  possible to rename a previously uploaded image ?

Best/René --Rln2700 (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rln2700: if you are the only contributor to any page (in this case an image in the File namespace) then you can request deletion under the G7 speedy deletion criterion by adding {{Db-g7}} to the wikitext of the page.

However, in most cases you probably don't actually want to delete the image. If the aim is to upload a new version then you can simply upload it under the same title, preserving the edit history so somebody could see both the old version and the new version.

As for renaming, again this is applicable to all pages on Wikipedia: you can move a page to any title that is not currently in use yourself. You will need help from somebody with advanced technical permissions if you want to move it to a page that already has some content there.

Hope this helps! — Bilorv (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

THX Bilorv.

If you look into the Wiki page, I'm in the midst of transforming pictures with proofs into inline math.

Therefore the pictures are becoming obsolete, one by one, over time, and I just wanted to do some "housekeeping" by

cleaning up (delete) these pictures. It seems a waste of space to have these remaining pictures stored in the "upload area". Rln2700 (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rln2700: deleting images doesn't actually save server space because all page creations, edits made to Wikimedia and versions of images (etc.) are stored permanently—an admin can still view a deleted image (and undelete if requested to). However, if you'd still like to delete it, I should have pointed out before that the images you've uploaded are actually held on Wikimedia Commons (not Wikipedia) and their G7 speedy deletion only applies within a week of uploading the image. You could file a deletion request explaining the reason for deletion and if there are no objections, this would be carried out after a week. — Bilorv (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

THX Bilorv,

I understand.

As I have now finished the transformation fo proofs from images to inline text, I'll leave it here.

End of story and THX again. 77.241.128.151 (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Question from KayleaVS (21:45, 16 September 2022)

Hi Bilorv, I am wondering if you can help me. I have been working on an article on and off but each time it is declined because it reads 'like an advertisement' but I am not sure how to write it in a tone more neutral than it already is? At this time I have 11 cites but could gather more. Here is the link to the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Amica_Senior_Lifestyles#History --KayleaVS (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@KayleaVS: this is a difficult one to say as I probably wouldn't give that decline reason. I can see a few hints of advertising-like or un-Wikipedia-like tone, subtle things like "... that offers housing ..." I'm not sure how valid the second decline was, given that it was made by somebody later found to be violating our rules around multiple accounts (or something of the sort).

It'd take me a while to do a proper review, but on a cursory glance I see Toronto.com and The Globe and Mail and Toronto Star and other sources that look good at first sight. If they're not adverts or pieces paid for by the company, and they cover the topic in detail (not in passing) then they would certainly contribute towards notability. So I would recommend resubmission as is, or with any improvements you can make. You're welcome to link to this comment (or let me know so I can link it) with my opinion that it's worth resubmitting. — Bilorv (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your feedback! KayleaVS (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Question from Jjrickwood (00:41, 17 September 2022)

Hi, I tried to write a page about the author Dr. Jillian Roberts. Did I do it correctly? --Jjrickwood (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jjrickwood: before I answer, can I ask a question of my own—do you have any personal or professional connection to Jillian Roberts? Or this just an author you're interested in? — Bilorv (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Just an author I am interested in Jjrickwood (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jjrickwood: this draft is better than 99% of the drafts I see by new users, so I've spent a fair bit of time improving it in these three edits: 1, 2, 3. I hope you'll review at least the edit summaries and ask any questions you can't answer by following the links there.

I've moved this draft to mainspace so it is now front-facing—indexed by search engines, viewable by the "Random article" button etc. It can be found at Jillian Roberts. I have done this because I believe it meets our notability policy and contains no major policy violations like copyright violations. In future, you can create drafts through the Wikipedia:Article wizard by clicking "Next" (not "Practice in your personal sandbox") and submit them for a volunteer to review.

When you gain more experience, you might also create articles directly in mainspace by navigating to the non-existent page title you want to use, like Jennifer Eustace Sandwich, and writing in the edit window, or by creating the page as a draft and then moving it into mainspace.

Thanks for all your work! — Bilorv (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Question from Abdulraufbature (14:11, 22 September 2022)

Hello --Abdulraufbature (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Abdulraufbature, and welcome to Wikipedia! Let me know if you have any questions. — Bilorv (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Black Mirror S3E3

Besides the thing about the police arresting him, was there anything else in my edit that could be considered inference? Hmm1994 (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

(The question is about this edit, for later reference.) @Hmm1994: thanks for the question! I think language like "offering feeble resistance" is a bit too opinionated/emotive for me to write myself but I don't think it's unreasonable given that Kenny's body language in that scene is carefully choreographed to show that. And "has been leaked to the entire world, and has been seen by his sister and all of her friends" is maybe also a bit emotive and going the way of overemphasis. I don't mind adding that his sister found out through her friends, or that her friends all saw it, in principle, but with the 400 word limit from MOS:TVPLOT it's more like any edits have to be "add a word, remove a word" balanced. So changes like "Hector returns home later that night" rather than "Hector returns home" are never helpful as we're always short on words to describe these standalone film-like episodes of Black Mirror. — Bilorv (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Question from Martin Cohle (08:03, 29 September 2022)

hi, Mr.Bilorv ! it's really nice to talk with you. where are you from? --A simple man (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, it seems you from uk, just click to your user page, very cool! --A simple man (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Martin Cohle and welcome to Wikipedia! I come from the UK, yes. Let me know if you have any questions about editing. — Bilorv (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Lemon grass pictures

I sent pictures of Flowers of Lemon Grass plant as I didn't see any in Wiki. আসাদগেটের আঁতেল (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@আসাদগেটের আঁতেল: I can't see that you have successfully uploaded any pictures, but they would be helpful to us. Take a look at the Upload Wizard on Wikimedia Commons and maybe try uploading them again. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Question from Meveline on Talk:Teaching assistant (08:44, 5 October 2022)

Why do you think you're qualified to be an education assistant What role do you think an education assistant plays in the classroom --Meveline (talk) 08:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Meveline: I take it from the question that you intended to ask this at Talk:Teaching assistant. However, you might have misunderstood the purpose of talk pages. A talk page is not a forum for discussion about the topic; it is only for discussion about how to improve the article. Editors sharing opinions is quite restricted, as Wikipedia summarises information found in other sources, rather than containing our own experiences and perspectives. — Bilorv (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Question from Babyface.Azariahhhh on User talk:Babyface.Azariahhhh (18:21, 6 October 2022)

how do i make my own wiki --Babyface.Azariahhhh (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Babyface.Azariahhhh: I believe from your other edits that this is about the passing of a loved one. I'm sorry to hear about your loss. However, Wikipedia has a limited scope defined by "notability" requirements: we require all information to be previously published in reliable sources, like books and national newspapers and scientific journals. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a memorial service. — Bilorv (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment from Copyeditor42 on (10:10, 8 October 2022)

You reverted my comment about endnote misnumbering on Jordan Peterson's 12 Rules for Life. While this point has not been formally published, I did report this to the book publisher about 3 years ago -- so maybe it is on their errata lists. In any case, the fact is easily verified by looking at a copy of the book (certainly true for the Allen Lane (GB) edition in 2018 (ISBN 978-0-241-35163-5)). IMHO the misnumbering point is a useful piece of information, particularly for someone casually looking up an endnote referenced in the text then finding it doesn't relate to the point in Peterson's argument.

Reverted text titled "Endnote numbering error" read:

Some editions have misnumbered endnotes, due to a missing tag on endnote 34. Thus notes marked as 35 - 220 in the text are incorrectly indicated as 34 - 219 in the Endnotes.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Copyeditor42 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I have replied here. If you leave a comment on an article's talk page and want me to see it, you can use the text {{Ping|Bilorv}} (in a comment where you use a signature) to make sure that I am notified of it. — Bilorv (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Article that may be of interest to you

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/09/03/jameela-jamil-pronouns-non-binary-twitter/ Uakari (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Uakari: it's not of particular interest to me, no. I wouldn't expect it to be due weight for Jameela Jamil. I might have it in mind for when we next discuss the reliability/significance of PinkNews at RSN. Quoting nobodies on Twitter is not journalism. — Bilorv (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Why would you not define quoting 'nobodies' on Twitter as journalism? If an exchange occurs on twitter and that is reported by other media, it is ipso facto a type of journalism, no? They are clearly reporting something that happened - they haven't invented it. Why would you suppose they would when they have written supportive articles about the subject in the past? Regarding due weight, if Jameela Jamil talks about various different supposed incidents involving bees and is widely reported as doing so by reliable sources, we are not expressing a view one way or the other as to whether these are true. All that's needed to include them is that enough reliable sources talk about them, which they do regarding the bee stories and also Mark Ronson's reaction to one of them. We can't just pick and choose material that puts the subject in a positive light, declare a source unreliable unilaterally because it reports on something that some may see as putting the subject in a negative light, or indeed include what someone says about themselves as automatically true just because they said it (while not including that it has been challenged). Uakari (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Uakari: this comment bears very little information to what I have actually stated e.g. We can't just pick and choose material that puts the subject in a positive light [and] declare a source unreliable unilaterally because it reports on something that some may see as putting the subject in a negative light. As such, I will not give a thorough response to it. I will briefly say, on Why would you not define quoting 'nobodies' on Twitter as journalism?, that journalism in my view requires a degree of curation, investigation or original content not met by the lazy and opportunist PinkNews piece. — Bilorv (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Requesting outside opinions on Bentinho Massaro

Hello! This may seem out of the blue, but I am requesting some outside opinions from experienced editors on the Bentinho Massaro article that I created - in particular as questions of neutrality and tone. Any help would be appreciated -- QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@QueenofBithynia: no promises but thanks for the request and I'll try to take a look in the next 48 hours. — Bilorv (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@QueenofBithynia: managed to get around to this one. Some thoughts:

• The source Rolling Stone is listed at RSP as reliable for entertainment, but not for politics and society, which I believe this would fall under. I'd avoid usage of the source for the claim that Massaro has been accused of sexual abuse.
• Truly does not strike me as a reliable source—is it just used for facts that Massaro says in interviews? The statement Following this, he moved back to The Netherlands in 2018, which sort of implies malicious action on the part of Massaro regarding the suicide, should be removed.
• Short descriptions should be short, so Spiritual leader accused of leading a cult should just be Spiritual leader. The factual accuracy is irrelevant: if you see "Spiritual leader" then you know you're clicking on the right article. That's the purpose of a short description.
• During the retreat, an individual died, possibly by suicide conflicts with the conclusiveness of the section header, 2017 suicide. It seems from the article (which I haven't read in full) that we could definitely say The Sedona Police Department told Massaro that the death was by suicide, but perhaps we can just say an individual died by suicide.
• I can't verify the de Volkskrant information, but the Dazed source is used appropriately and I don't see inherent issues with "Testimony from former members" if the content is well-sourced.

Overall, it's a difficult topic, but I think the topic is notable and the article content is largely justified. We certainly shouldn't err on the side of pretending to believe nonsense (so it's good we call the 9/11 claims "conspiracy theories"), but I do think there are a couple of sourcing issues. — Bilorv (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for engaging with my request, I really appreciate it! Done all those edits now.

I have also removed the Rolling Stone and Truly sources, as well as content related to them - the latter was mainly used for facts that he said in interviews, but I guess I should wait for more reliable outlets to pick up on these claims to make them notable.

Thanks again for your help! QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@QueenofBithynia: glad the suggestions were helpful! Always happy to provide feedback. — Bilorv (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Question from Usher8701 (01:26, 14 October 2022)

hi I work for Soa Palelei some one keeps on editing his page with false information that could eaopardise his current empoyment what can we do to stop this from happening --Usher8701 (talk) 01:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Usher8701: you must follow the conflict of interest/paid editor guidelines, which are your responsibility to study. Your edits so far are in violation of them. You should not remove sourced content, but should instead use edit requests, which an uninvolved volunteer responds to in due course.

It is not clear to me how it could possibly be wrong that Palelei was accused of being associated [with] ... Rock Machine (emphasis mine) when the source says that he was accused of these associations. The article also included Palelei's denial. It may be inappropriate content that should be removed, but "false information" does not strike me as an honest assessment, which is precisely why we have tight restrictions on how conflict of interest editors can act. You do not have a neutral perspective. As such, without endorsing the content, I have reverted your edits that go against our COI procedures. — Bilorv (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Question from Devputraa (14:44, 15 October 2022)

Hi Bilorv,

I want to add a new article related to a close person. Wikipedia is suggesting getting it done by Edit Request. Can you please help here with how to proceed? --Devputraa (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Devputraa: I see that you've made a correct disclosure on your userpage, which is good to see. If you have not already familiarised yourself with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, you should do so. I would advise your close acquaintance that having a Wikipedia page about yourself is not an honour or a privilege, but means that the subject falls within our narrow scope defined by "notability" rules. A subject is not in control of their Wikipedia page and does not own it. To maintain editorial independence, which is necessary for a neutral point of view, we highly discourage the creation of pages by somebody with a conflict of interest. You can, if insistent, create a draft through the Article wizard, but the vast majority of conflict of interest editors who do so do not succeed in having their draft approved, as the subject is not notable or they are not editing with the good of Wikipedia in mind. — Bilorv (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Bilorv for you feedback. I understand the points you have mentioned. Although the person is close to me but there are different reason for creating an article like:

- Person is a well-known regional film actor.

- Has presence on IMDB.

- Got coverage in print/electronic Media.

- To let other people know more about the person.

So is this not sufficient to proceed? Devputraa (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Devputraa: if there are genuine reasons for creating an article on the subject, then an uninvolved volunteer might create an article. This is how Wikipedia is built. It's not built by people with conflicts of interest. I'm not impressed by this description, though, because IMDb is generally much looser than our notability for actors standard and "regional" is not very wide of a scope (depending a little on the country though). Substantial coverage in print and electronic media would be the only thing we are interested in, and we'd need multiple reliable, (inter)national sources that cover the subject in detail (not just in passing in sources about the films) to show notability. — Bilorv (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

This is really helpful, thanks for your guidance. @Bilorv. Devputraa (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Challenge suggestion

For about 10 hours the other day, I had content on the main pages of enwiki (DYK Hurricane Shark) and enwikisource (new text Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (585 U.S. ___)) simultaneously. It occurred to me that that might make for a good challenge. Two wikis is easy enough, but maybe make the goal four or five? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Another suggestion: should the bonus for Vitality be doing it for all five Vital-article tiers? Extremely difficult, but possible. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm reticent to have this bonus for Vitality, AirshipJungleman29, because there are only 10 Level 1 Vital articles.

@Tamzin: is the suggestion to simultaneously have content on four different main pages? That strikes me as inordinately rare, though I don't know how difficult it is if you seek it out due to different standards/lengths of featuring on different Wikimedia projects. Congrats on your two! I think, however, that the Challenges are currently all restricted just to en.wiki (even Polyglot) and I might prefer to keep it that way. — Bilorv (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Many wikis have very liberal policies of what can be added to their main pages, including enwikisource (where "Recent additions" is basically DYK minus any review process). So four would be, I think, not much harder than some existing challenges. But either way, I get keeping it all to enwiki. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: yes, interesting. It does sound doable, but I'll leave it for now. Perhaps I'll eventually accrue enough other ideas to make an inter-wiki category of Challenges. — Bilorv (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Question from DavidFinFro (18:17, 22 October 2022)

Hi Bilorv - I am editing the page for Malcolm Offord. Another editor - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlistairMcMillan - has made some changes and added a tag suggesting that I may have been paid for editing (I have not), that I have a close connection with the subject (which I do not) and has also removed a complete section on his philanthropy for (as far as I can see) no good reason.

I've replied to him asking about why he did this.

My only connection - which is tenuous - is that Malcolm Offord was a director of Social Justice Scotland between 31 August 2009 and 13 December 2009. He was based in London. I was named "Research Director" - I was in charge of a team of interns in Glasgow and never met, communicated with or had any dealings with any Malcolm Offord or any of the non-Exec directors. I'm letting you know this as I want to be thoroughly transparent. A "close" connection (I thought) is knowing someone personally, working with them or having worked with them - some form of direct contact. This I have never had.

How I can prove a negative, I do not know - I assure you that Malcolm Offord has not paid me to edit his page and that I have not asked hil for any payment.

I am really not sure how to resolve this dispute, though. Please could you advise me?

Thanks for your help,

David --DavidFinFro (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Pinging AlistairMcMillan. I wouldn't like to remove the tag without understanding what they mean by "editors from Badenoch", but nor would I like the tag to persist based on your edits and no other suspicions.

As for the removal of the philanthropy section, I have to agree with it. Other than a bit of football content possibly worth keeping ([1]), the information is only backed up by primary sources: press releases, charity websites and government website pages. This does not show significance of the content. Moreover, though not the position of all editors, I believe the header "Philanthropy" is inherently non-neutral. Certainly the content in this case seems to reflect positively on Offord, but the sources have no serious scrutiny or journalistic investigation into what actions he has taken as trustee, how much money is involved in his personal trust and what non-charitable investments (if any) the trust has. The most salient point is probably that if no reliable secondary sources have covered it then it is not relevant to his notability or public persona (however big or small a part of his professional or personal life it may be). — Bilorv (talk) 11:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

So in a very short space of time we have one editor who openly declared themselves an employee of Badenoch (User:Gillian_at_Badenoch) and following the rules on COI requested an edit to the article. Then a few weeks later we have an anonymous IP editor Special:Contributions/80.44.71.170 doubling the size of the article. And then we have User:DavidFinFro who says they do not know Offord, and lets assume good faith perhaps doesn't, but from their edits they are clearly a single purpose account here to edit the article in Offord's favour. Maybe this is all coincidental, maybe not. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I've checked the Special:Contributions/80.44.71.170 entry. In fact, I made these edits before I registered as an editor. I'm declaring this as I want to be open and above-board.

Didn't notice the (User:Gillian_at_Badenoch) entry, but that is an editor, not editors.

The philanthropy section is not essential so I so not dispute your maintaining the removal. As for the tags which are based on personal suspicions - please remove them.

You'll see that since User:AlistairMcMillan edited the page I have only asked for changes to be made via the COI Wizard rather than directly so that everything can be seen to be above board. I fall into the category of "many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest" not "editing for promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas." and have tried to be neutral, substantiating all entries with verifiable citations.

User:AlistairMcMillan wrote "their edits they are clearly a single purpose account here to edit the article in Offord's favour. Maybe this is all coincidental, maybe not." Isn't there a Wikipedia principle

My purpose was to give what I feel is a factual view of the subject with all necessary references. DavidFinFro (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@DavidFinFro: I'm inclined not to intervene and let AlistairMcMillan decide whether to remove the tags on the basis of this explanation. The tags' continued existence would not be an attack on yourself, but a request that an uninvolved editor thoroughly evaluate the article content for neutrality.

Since you seem to think that they should have acted differently, I would ask you to consider why an experienced editor might add such tags. What should we use other than personal suspicions to make judgements of whether undisclosed paid editing has occurred? There is generally no evidence other than circumstantial. But it is a widespread problem that threatens an existential problem in us being unable to uphold our second pillar. Any action we take will have false positives and hard cases that make bad law. — Bilorv (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Bilorv Thank you for your feedback and for taking time over this. You say "The tags' continued existence would not be an attack on yourself, but a request that an uninvolved editor thoroughly evaluate the article content for neutrality." I agree as regards the "close connection" tag, which is why I am going to use the COI Wizard to request any future edits. As regards the "may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments" tag, how can I not regard this as a personal attack? I have not received payment in any form and were I offered payment I would decline it. This year I have been donating to Wikipedia (only £2 per month, but still.....), I am a long-time user and have high respect for the Wikipedia principles. Given that the editor who added that tag also noted the philanthropy edit with "Rich guy gives pennies to charity. Shocking" I think that I have been judged - to paraphrase you, I would ask you to consider why an experienced editor might act on personal suspicions and make a barbed comment?

Really, it would be best if an experienced, non-involved editor did look over the page - is there a way I could request this, please? DavidFinFro (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Bilorv: the discussion around added templates has become circular and a bit sterile. I'd like to ask if in the interests of fairness and seeking closure the following is possible:

Conflict of interest - the editor who placed this template should name whom he alleges has a conflict of interest and why. He should also offer a Wikipedia-supported definition of closeness.

Undisclosed Payment - the editor who placed this template should name whom he alleges has made and received the payments and offer any supporting evidence.

This would allow those named to accept or rebut the allegations.

Is this permissible?

Thanks for your guidance DavidFinFro (talk) 06:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bilorv Hi Bilorv - I believe that I formatted your username incorrectly in the above questions: I apologise if I appear to be repeating myself.

The discussion around the CoI and UPE templates added to malcolm Offord's page has become circular and a bit sterile. I'd like to ask if in the interests of fairness and seeking closure for the following:

Conflict of interest - the editor who placed this template should name whom he alleges have a conflict of interest and why. He should also offer a Wikipedia-supported definition of closeness. All editors who have contributed to the page should be told about the allegation and given a chance to comment.

Undisclosed Payment - the editor who placed this template should name whom he alleges has made and received the payments and offer any supporting evidence.All editors who have contributed to the page should be told about the allegation and given a chance to comment.

This would allow those named to accept or rebut the allegations.

While having a neutral editor look over the page would be useful, I also feel that addressing the (so far) unsubstantiated allegations which have been made is also necessary as Wikipedia essay "Claims require specific evidence" [[2]] suggests.

Thanks for your guidance. DavidFinFro (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@DavidFinFro: I can read everything that you comment on this page, and the history of what you added/removed/changed in each edit, so there is no need for repetition.

I believe that the article would benefit for an uninvolved editor thoroughly looking through its prose and sources. The tags, which indicate potential content issues, are designed to draw such attention to the article, and not to make "allegations" against individuals—we have other ways of flagging behavioural issues and use blocks/bans as remedies. The essay you have linked is about behavioural issues, not content issues. I appreciate the line can become murky in cases of COI/UPE where a content issue would imply a behavioural issue, but fundamentally a tag on an article is supposed to indicate a content issue. — Bilorv (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bilorv- thank you for your reply and for the clarification. I apologise for the repetition.

Taking on board your advice about content issues, my point still stands. The content issue has not been addressed fairly. My proposed resolution would bring into the open the reasons for the tags having been added (an area which has not as yet been examined) as well as enabling reasonable discussion as to whether adding the tags was justified. As yet, there has been no clear definition of "closeness" for the COI tag and no explanation offered (other than "personal supicions") to substantiate why the the UPE tag was added. DavidFinFro (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@DavidFinFro: the tags were added in good faith by an uninvolved editor and can be removed in good faith by an uninvolved editor, when such a person comes along and evaluates the article.

On Wikipedia, the point is to improve articles, not to "examine" each other's behaviour. If you have no interest in contributing to pages other than Malcolm Offord then you may have misunderstood what it means to sign up and volunteer. We have many crap articles that desperately need attention, and frankly each protracted, circular argument is a waste of volunteer time that draws focus away from this. If you want some pointers of where to start, I'm happy to help. — Bilorv (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@User:Bilorv Thank you for your reply. I've made my position clear - that at present I want to edit the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Offord page.

I could also contribute to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiki page (it could do with some additional information on the origins, with the section on the Catholic Church concerns being removed and with expanded information on Training, certification and adoption) but the fuss over Malcolm Offord's page has made me wary (for the present, at least) of any expanded involvement in Wikipedia editing.

Agreed about circular arguments - however I felt (rightly or wrongly) that the editor who added the tags may indeed have been acting in good faith but that he could not justify the tags used. My initial belief about Wikipedia was that any information added had to be verifiable, properly sourced and in this instance I cannot see that this has been adhered to. I still feel that the content issue has not been addressed properly.

The tags mention "cleaning" - what is this, please, and how could I go about requesting it?

I hope that the Malcolm Offord page is not "crap" as I tried to make sure that it was neutral in tone and that every point was supported. That being said, pointers on where to start would be very useful and I would be grateful to receive them. DavidFinFro (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@DavidFinFro: I'm not willing to answer further questions about the article Malcolm Offord, in which I have no interest. The page Reiki could indeed do with a lot more information. Note that medical articles come with their own standards of high-quality sources and you must be wary of taking what proponents of the pseudoscientific practice claim at face value (including claims about reiki's history/origins). — Bilorv (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bilorv. Thank you for the time you spent. DavidFinFro (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from MedicalKebab (14:55, 24 October 2022)

Hi Bilorv! If you encounter a statement in an article that requires a citation, how do you flag it so that another editor can properly cite it? Or more simply put, how do you deal with statements that have no evidence to support them? --MedicalKebab (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@MedicalKebab: you might be surprised at my answer, but I would honestly say—you need to fix it yourself. If you aren't motivated to spend your free time volunteering to add a citation, why would somebody else? There is a {{citation needed}} template that you can add to articles, but most languish for years or even decades before someone finds a citation to add, if they ever do. Use it only if you have tried and failed to solve the problem yourself. We have a shortage of volunteers that mean we have no problems detecting quality issues, just problems getting labour to fix them. But more than this, Wikipedia is built on a spirit of collaboration, where readers are editors and vice versa: if you read something that you can improve, then you should do so without seeking anybody's permission. — Bilorv (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Question from Radbull (23:32, 24 October 2022)

hello -still figuring this out :-) I joined because there is a wikipedia page that disappeared it was on a political operator who runs a PR out fit. His company has a page, and his name is referenced. There should have a wikipedia entry, but it's gone now. Can I find that link somehow? Can somebody delete entire pages? --Radbull (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@Radbull: if you tell me the exact name of the page, including capitalisation and punctuation, then I can tell you whether it has ever existed or why it was deleted. Deletion is done without discussion when articles are blatantly in violation of Wikipedia's scope e.g. adverts for some company, hagiographies for some person, hoaxes or unreferenced content; and discussions over deletion can be started by any editor who believes that an article violates our scope (perhaps more subtly). — Bilorv (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

hi - thanks for reply -very new to this

I guess the "exact name" would just be the name of the guy - Jaime Watt - he is now a very powerful political operator. Ten years or so ago there was a fairly extensive Wikipedia page on him which mentioned a fraud conviction he had. It was just factual and I just can't see it violating any guidelines. But it would have been very embarrassing for him since he was now a powerful advisor to the Prime Minister.

I quoted that page in the comments section of the CBC several times and I'm sure he saw it. I'm also pretty sure he somehow got that page scrubbed from Wikipedia somehow. Information on him that used to be easily found is no longer there and I'm sure he's sanitizing his reputation.

Thanks for your attention. Radbull (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Radbull: everything on Wikipedia is publicly documented, so accusations that somebody did something nefarious are easy to prove or disprove. The page Jaime Watt was deleted, as the link reads, after the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaime Watt. I know Bearcat and I can guarantee that the deletion was nothing to do with Watt. Rather, it appears it was done on the recommendation of a substantial contributor to the article because it does not fall within our scope for biographies. Advisors can be notable—Dominic Cummings springs to mind—but they are not often so, no matter how foul they may or may not be, because they do not generally receive in-depth coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources.

If Watt was convicted for fraud because of his activity for some company e.g. Navigator Ltd then the fact may still belong on Wikipedia under an article about that topic. But if it's a fact about Watt unrelated to existing articles then it shouldn't be shoehorned in. — Bilorv (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

hi- thanks for all that

I read Bearcat's reasoning and sort of understand it -I'm new to your terminology.

If I understand the reasoning, seems he deleted the article because Watt was no longer considered notable (a curious conclusion - he's a very powerful guy) and I think he was saying somebody had been trying to mess with the article.

I'm going to try to contact Bearcat , but he seems something of a Wikipedia rockstar :-) and may not have time for me.

Watt and his company have been the news a lot recently - he really needs a page of his own and I disagree he's not notable.

I'm not sure I would be up to the task of writing one myself - I'm having difficulty finding any info on Watt's past.

Much thanks, though - it's a start. Radbull (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Radbull: I don't understand what leads you to think that I think he was saying somebody had been trying to mess with the article. It is not true that Bearcat deleted the article, but that they made an argument for deletion which another user agreed with and nobody objected to, so an admin implemented the deletion. @Bearcat: any memory of what happened here? I know it was 7 years ago. — Bilorv (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

My misunderstanding your terminology, I guess - I'm in unfamiliar waters.

Bearcat said he was probably the source of the entry and I thought he decided to delete it - thanks for clarifying that.

When he wrote "but at least one anonymous IP is now trying to get the unsourced BLP stuff readded, while citing mainly circular references (i.e. sites that are simply mirroring our own pre-oversighted version) rather than reliable source coverage." - I interpreted that as somebody trying to influence the entry.

Being still new - I don't yet know who does what or how.

But thanks for the guidance - hope Bearcat gets back to us. Radbull (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi - I've been reading the notability guidelines - or trying to get my head around them.

It's hard to believe that watt would NOT have "in-depth coverage in multiple reliable,independent sources"

But, I'm having a hard time finding any except that one Ibbetson Globe and Mail article that isn't even about Watt - it's about another advisor.

It's got to be out there somewhere. Radbull (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The first thing that's necessary to understand is that notability on Wikipedia is not a question of what you say about the subject — it's a question of how well the things you say about the subject can or can't be referenced to reliable sources. No matter how important you may think a person is, he isn't eligible to have a Wikipedia article at all if the content isn't referenced to proper media coverage to establish that he would pass WP:GNG.

The second thing that's necessary to understand is that Wikipedia's standards have evolved heavily over time, and stuff that was acceptable when the article was created in 2005 can be problematic or unacceptable now. In 2005, articles didn't have to be all that well-referenced at all, and we were a lot looser about what constituted a valid notability claim than we are today — but that doesn't mean that old articles that aren't adequate under contemporary standards get "grandfathered" just because they used to be okay, it means they have to be either upgraded to pass contemporary standards or deleted if they can't.

So, those things said: as of the time that I listed Jaime Watt's article for deletion, it wasn't properly sourced at all. Its only source for his work with Navigator was his own staff profile on Navigator's own website, which is a primary source that does not constitute support for notability, another footnote was just a very short blurb about him in a listicle, and all of the others were just about him being presented with a minor award that wouldn't clinch a person as notable just because he won it.

The fraud stuff was not present in the article at all — it had indeed been there once upon a time, but by 2015 it had long been removed from the article under Wikipedia policy, because it wasn't properly sourced. Our articles don't exist to disparage people any more than they exist to hagiographize people — negative content about them doing bad things can be in the article, but only if it's reliably sourced as accurate. (Our articles can cause harm to people if we get stuff wrong, so negative claims have to be sourced very, very carefully, and cannot be in an article at all if they're not.) So then somebody started trying to readd the fraud stuff, but still without citing any proper sources for it — instead, they were trying to cite the fraud stuff to an old copy of a prior version of the article from before the fraud stuff got stripped the first time. But we cannot reference our article content to ourselves per WP:CIRCULAR, so that still wasn't appropriate or acceptable sourcing either.

But there were additional problems as well: firstly, he just didn't (and still doesn't) really have much strong WP:GNG-worthy sourcing about him at all — on a ProQuest search, I was able to find a lot of news articles that mentioned his name, but not a lot of news articles that were actually about him as a subject — but a source has to be the latter, not the former, to help establish notability. And secondly, those very few articles that were about him in any non-trivial sense all existed exclusively in the context of his being rehired by the government after the fraud stuff went down, meaning that even if it were added back into the article with those new sources the article would still likely violate WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP. So, really, the only option left was to list the article for deletion.

Again, notability isn't established by just saying that a person is important — it's established by citing solid reliable sources (media coverage, books, etc.) to demonstrate that their importance has been externally validated by third parties independently of their own self-promotion. A political advisor isn't automatically notable just because he exists; he becomes notable if he can be shown to pass WP:GNG on his sourceability. A public relations consultant isn't automatically notable just because he exists; he becomes notable if he can be shown to pass WP:GNG on his sourceability. A CEO of a company isn't automatically notable just because he exists; he becomes notable if he can be shown to pass WP:GNG on his sourceability. And GNG isn't passed by sources that mention Jaime Watt's name, it's passed by sources in which Jaime Watt is a primary subject.

And on and so forth: it's not the things the article says that confer notability on Wikipedia, it's the quality and depth and volume of the sources that can or can't be shown to support the things the article says, and Jaime Watt's article just never actually showed the necessary quality, depth or volume of sourcing at all. And while I can easily find a lot of sources that mention his name, there are actually far, far fewer sources that are genuinely about him than you seem to think there must be. (And I know that because I checked, both in 2015 and just now.) Bearcat (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

wow - thanks for all that -it's much clearer now. I'm impressed.

There were insufficient sources where Watt was the primary subject - I get that now.

I had the same experience trying to find info on him - lots of mentions, even stuff written by him, but not primary stuff about his conviction.

I feel a bit better that a researcher of your calibre didn't find anything either.

Sure took the wind out of my sails, though.

I thought for a bit that I might create a page, but that was somewhat naive. If even you can't find sources, I'm stopped right out of the gate. Radbull (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi -as you can see, Bearcat got back to me

I'm disappointed but better informed - thanks for your help. Radbull (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Question from Allaoii (20:01, 26 October 2022)

do you have any projects or places to recommend for me? --Allaoii (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Allaoii: thanks for the question! Your homepage should have some suggested types of edits you can make, but it is also really important to learn our policies and guidelines. Help:Introduction is a good starting place, or you can read our Five pillars and follow the links there. Wikipedia:Task Center also has suggested ways you can pick a random article and improve it. If you let me know any particular interests you have, I can also recommend something topic-specific. — Bilorv (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

do you know anything about unusual history? Example! Allaoii 23:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Allaoii: depends what you count as unusual. Portal:History is a good place to start going down a rabbit-hole in an area of history that interests you. — Bilorv (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

by unusual history i mean myteries that havent been answered but thanks Allaoii ^talk 19:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Photo unreal

Hi. The photo of david gries is very unnatural. His face is much longer. Pls fix!!

Pls find a better photo for david gries cornell 2A06:C701:4AF2:3400:86C:991A:7039:972C (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean David Gries? Because one of Wikipedia's five pillars is that our content should be free, we generally restrict ourselves to Creative Commons (or public domain) images of living individuals. In Gries' case, the image seems to have been donated by Gries himself, and it's recent and high-quality, so I do not see where we would find an improvement on it. — Bilorv (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from Chichiri01 (21:04, 11 November 2022)

morning i want to write my history where can i do that in my portal --Chichiri01 (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Chichiri01: I'm not sure what exactly you're asking to do. You can create your userpage, User:Chichiri01, and tell us a little bit about yourself and why you want to edit Wikipedia. But you should not write a Wikipedia article about yourself, as we have notability criteria that restrict who we host biographies of, and need articles to be written from an independent point of view (i.e. by a volunteer with no connection to yourself). — Bilorv (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from D7d777 1 on Help:Getting started (21:09, 16 November 2022)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)#Defining_race "In South Africa, the Population Registration Act, 1950 recognized only White, Black, and Coloured, with Indians added later.[26]" fix this mistake "Coloured" is spelled incorrectly. --D7d777 1 (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi D7d777 1. In general, you should be bold and fix mistakes you see yourself, but I see this page was semi-protected―I'm sure you can imagine the sort of vandalism it attracts. Either a change you make sticks, and you've improved an article, or it's reverted and you learn something new. The instruction "fix this mistake" comes across quite rudely.

In this case, had you made your change, you would have been reverted: Coloureds is, as I just learned, a racial term specific to Africa and different from the word Colo(u)red as used in other places. In general, articles use a mixture of English dialectics (British English, American English, South African English etc.) depending on the locality of the topic or the history of the article (see WP:ENGVAR). You should always check whether a spelling difference like color vs. colour is a dialectical difference or a misspelling. — Bilorv (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)