Jump to content

User talk:Bilorv/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 14

This archive is updated manually by Bilorv.

Archive created 08:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Request on 21:33:01, 6 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Kilitzianf


I've submitted this article and resubmitted - and I do appreciate all of the requests you've made. I've made quite a few changes, which you've acknowledged. I just made a few more. You specifically requested that I revise the language in the Police Commendations. That's where I struggle. I quoted the language in the commendations that were provided from the San Francisco Police Commission. Maybe half of them are single sentence descriptions. I thought that they were already very concise, and not "flowery". If your objection is that there are too many of them - then perhaps you can suggest a different approach. Those commendations, time after time, are what made the SFPD brass sit up and take notice of this brash young officer. No matter how they tried, they couldn't ignore his performance excellence. It's how he "got over". As I wrote the article, once I got to the commendations I could so easily see why they just couldn't treat Rotea Gilford like all of the rest. There had to be something - something that would make them take another look - and another - and another. It's how he changed people's perception of black people. It's why they listened to him - and merely tolerated others. Rotea was not your average guy. When he talked everyone nearby stopped what they were doing and strained to hear.Kilitzianf (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC) Kilitzianf (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kilitzianf: thanks for the comment. It appears to me that you have still not internalised all of the points that I made. On Wikipedia, we aim for a neutral point of view, itself a contentious phrase which can create lots of misconceptions. In the case of Gilford, it means that an article must not commend him for anything, or condemn him for anything. If you believe that Gilford is an extraordinary figure who has made major anti-racist and civil rights progress then that's great, and you're certainly allowed to share that with other editors. But the best way to show off somebody's legacy, at least we believe, is by letting the record speak for itself.
Phrases like "Rotea Gilford was frequently recognized with awards" and "... detail ten commendations for brave actions taken by Gilford ..." are indistinguishable from much marketing PR that we are spammed with. It does not impress anybody. Additionally, less is more: by including smaller achievements and less significant details, you ensure that readers will not actually find the most important facets of the subject, and instead glaze over or get bored and close the tab.
This goes for any topic I write about, whether it's a biography of the person I most admire, or an article on the worst book I've ever read. I let the facts speak for themselves—if I really believe that a person was great, it means that I trust other people to come to the right conclusion when presented with the facts alone. Sometimes a fact can be "Historian Joe Bloggs commented that Doe was 'the bravest person in human history'", but it cannot be "Doe is acclaimed for her bravery".
You can resubmit the draft when you are ready, and let me know if you don't know how to do that, but in its current state I'd be very surprised if the next reviewer didn't agree with me about the neutrality issues that still remain. — Bilorv (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Question from Cestgeorge (15:16, 20 October 2021)

You have declined my darft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Magon_(musician)

You wrote the following "I considered whether the Ferarock charting meets WP:MUSICBIO#2, but after reading fr:Ferarock I determined that it doesn't. Even if it did, music bio is only a list of things that may make a person notable, and there is not much in-depth coverage of Magon here." I was wondering if you didn't think the Rolling Stone articles were enough to make the artist notable? If not, what kind of coverage do you think a music artist needs to have to be considered notable? Thanks in advance :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cestgeorge (talk • contribs) 13:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the question, Cestgeorge. I'm not too keen on the first article, EXCLU – La classe nonchalante et rock de Magon avec « Aerodynamic », as there's not much critical commentary here, just routine coverage of a song that exists and an album about to be released. The second one, EXCLU – Avec Magon, pisser dans la rue est (presque) devenu cool, has more of what I'm looking for: critical commentary on the style of music and comparisons to other artists. But only a couple of paragraphs of it. Overall, these sources do contribute towards notability, but don't get it over the line in my opinion. The article has just a few short sentences about Magon himself, and not much critical analysis of the style of music Magon has produced. I would expect a few more paragraphs in at least one of those two aspects in any notable musician biography. — Bilorv (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to answer. I think understand! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cestgeorge (talk • contribs) 10:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome, Cestgeorge. You can sign your posts when leaving a comment by ending them with the code ~~~~. — Bilorv (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Question draft

Hello, do not be bored. I have submitted a draft from a reader and to create it, I can know your opinion about the article. In the article, there are more than 40 reputable news websites.--Modeling (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi ایرانی and thanks for the question! The draft has been placed in the queue and will be assessed in due course by a volunteer. We get several hundred submissions per day and there are only a handful of volunteers to review them in whatever order they choose, so this may take some time, depending on whether anyone thinks the draft falls into their area of expertise. The queue currently stands at 2 months, but the review may be much quicker, or even longer than this. Without doing a thorough review, I can't tell whether the draft is likely to be accepted or not. — Bilorv (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
You are right and I asked this question because I saw that you specialize in music. If you are upset by my request, I apologize to you.--Modeling (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
@ایرانی: I review music drafts sometimes, but I don't generally accept requests to review specific drafts because this might encourage a flooding of too many requests for me to handle. — Bilorv (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
thanks for your response--Modeling (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Question from Themars3453 (15:10, 26 October 2021)

how do i edit --Themars3453 (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Themars3453 and thanks for the question! The answer may be different depending on what device you are on. If you are on desktop, every page on Wikipedia should have a link at the top, near the right, that says "Edit". If you are on mobile, the top of an article should have a series of symbols and you're looking for a pencil one, like the one you can see below to the right of the name "Barack Obama" (although my device shows some different symbols):
Try testing this out at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you think you've got the hang of it, you can try editing this page ("User talk:Bilorv") to reply to my message. On talk pages, you need to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message to produce a signature, like the one you see I have here: — Bilorv (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Non-serious question

Is it cheating to copy your page to mainspace from userspace once you're done writing it for your "minimal edits for GA" challenge? (given that I'd've written the whole article, there is no requirement for attribution) Elli (talk | contribs) 22:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the question, Elli. Anything is fair game so long as it's not disruptive, so yes, there's no problem with that. (I'd link the userspace draft in your first edit summary, though, which also suffices for required attribution in cases where others have contributed to the material.) — Bilorv (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Great, think this is certainly doable for me then :) Elli (talk | contribs) 23:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Faberlic

Hello. I translated an article from the Russian Wikipedia. There is also this article in the Polish, Ukrainian and Turkish Wikipedia. Will there be time to take a look ? Thanks ! 37.230.234.79 (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Please do not spam multiple editors with the same question. The draft has been submitted by a very kind editor who has replied to you, and will be reviewed in due course. — Bilorv (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Question from Koosuah Daniel on Q&A (09:00, 28 October 2021)

I want to join place lead me --Koosuah Daniel (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Koosuah Daniel, and welcome to Wikipedia. On your homepage you should see suggestions of some good tasks to help you start editing. If you have any specific questions, or can't get something to work, feel free to ask me. — Bilorv (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Question from Koosuah Daniel on Wikipedia:Blocking policy (12:30, 28 October 2021)

Unlock me please --Koosuah Daniel (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Koosuah Daniel, you are not blocked on this account, otherwise you would not have been able to ask me this question. Do you have another account that is blocked? Or, what else is making you think that you are blocked? — Bilorv (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Cast

I added a Cast section to this page today, and included the pet of one of the members (he is listed in the opening credits of the 2nd season). I didn't think anyone would take issue because I double checked MOS:TV before doing so and included a source to support, but another editor rmvd it not so long ago (here and here), which I subsequently rvd. Now I'm wondering if I should have perhaps just mentioned the pet being credited in the season in a note under the last member's name, instead of as I currently have it. I don't think he shouldn't be mentioned at all. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the consultation, Carlobunnie. I can see that if the dog is in the opening credits and genuinely a substantial part of the show then there's a good argument for including him, but I wouldn't really be comfortable weighing in without having seen the show (to get a sense of how serious that credit is in context and what the dog's role is). A note could be fine, or the full credit could be too—I don't think I've seen this situation before. Reverting once with a reason is generally okay, but if the editor or another person removes it again, I'd start discussion on the talk page with your thoughts about it. — Bilorv (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
If you wish, I can provide a link via email for you to view it (when you have time to that is) in order to make a proper assessment. Whether it be just one episode, or more, is up to you. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
To be honest, Carlobunnie, I'd rather leave it to existing fans, as I'm not sure this matter would be a priority worth the time investment. — Bilorv (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
That's fine. Have a good night! -- Carlobunnie (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Question from BLUEISZEBEST1 (02:16, 2 November 2021)

how does i edit --BLUEISZEBEST1 (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi BLUEISZEBEST1 and thanks for the question! The answer may be different depending on what device you are on. If you are on desktop, every page on Wikipedia should have a link at the top, near the right, that says "Edit". If you are on mobile, the top of an article should have a series of symbols and you're looking for a pencil one, like the one you can see below to the right of the name "Barack Obama" (although my device shows some different symbols):
Try testing this out at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you think you've got the hang of it, you can try editing this page ("User talk:Bilorv") to reply to my message. On talk pages, you need to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message to produce a signature, like the one you see I have here: — Bilorv (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Question from CynMTU (12:44, 7 November 2021)

Hi there - I am new to wikipedia and am employed by my alma mater to make wikipedia better. I think I have disclosed all of this correctly and have started to make updates, but another editor is telling me I shouldn't make changes to articles directly. What do I do? --CynMTU (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi CynMTU, very interesting question. I assume by "another editor is telling me..." you are referring to this template message from ElKevbo. Wikipedia often operates on a Pareto principle on steroids (in many places it's more like 90/0.1 than 80/20), and due to this extreme limitation of number of volunteers in comparison to number of actions that need to be taken, you can get very prolific editors who have 30 seconds to spend assessing something complicated, and they have to do that for hours. Here is a relatively innocent example of that: the editor has looked through your contributions but doesn't have time to check if you've dotted the "i"s and crossed the "t"s, so they leave you a default template with all the instructions there, so (a) the burden is now on you to follow it all and (b) you can't later complain that nobody told you about a rule.
It's always best to have this in mind when interacting with other Wikipedians, because often your first step is to simply ask them "what does this message mean and why did you give it to me?" It may seem silly that you have to ask, but only 1 in 10 or 100 people will do that, so that means the editor can afford the time to give you proper feedback and more time. You may, however, still encounter people being very short with you, and that's when it's best to ask someone else, like myself, or a volunteer at the Teahouse.
Wikipedians in Residence (WiRs) are maybe 0.1% (maybe 0.01%) of all paid editors, so the template given isn't really designed to be read by you. I'm honestly no expert about WiRs, but my understanding is that you are allowed to make edits to articles directly. There may be limited cases where doing so would not be acceptable—if, let's say, your alma mater's principal is accused of sexual harassment and you think those details should be removed from the article. But WiRs are generally trusted to be acting fairly impartially, unless their edits demonstrate a consistent pattern of violating our second pillar.
P.S. on your userpage, a link to Chodges12001 should point to User:Chodges12001. — Bilorv (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, there is no exception for WP:COI for "Wikipedians-in-Residence." If I'm mistaken, please point to me where the community decided that. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
@ElKevbo: I didn't mean to suggest that COI doesn't apply, just that the template is not designed with WiR in mind. There is no rule at WP:COI or WP:PAID that such editors cannot edit articles they are associated with, which is what the question asked is about (they are generally "very strongly discouraged", but not in the case of WiR, as this is the whole point of the project). Read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Wikipedians in residence, reward board for a very brief mention that WiRs are treated differently to other paid editors ("There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable"). I can try to dig up RfCs if you insist (the search tool isn't showing what I expected it to), but just from my years of participating in discussions I would note that I often see people commenting in proposals related to COI/paid editing that WiR should be treated as a different case (for instance in the perennial "ban paid editing"). — Bilorv (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. It helps! CynMTU (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

"We're being pressured into sex by some trans women"

About the article "We're being pressured into sex by some trans women": Do you mean that the quotes are actually part of the headline, and the author of the article was actually quoting someone instead of expressing their own opinion? JIP | Talk 23:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@JIP: thanks for asking. Yes, indeed, the quotes are part of the headline, for whatever reason. (The origin of the quote, or whether it's a paraphrase, isn't clear, but adding quote marks is one of these things the BBC does to feign impartiality.) I think your page move was correct—as we use double quotes as a matter of "house style" even though the BBC uses single as house style—but the nested quotes are needed in prose. (And we don't need nested quotes in the title for the same reason we don't need any quotes at titles like "An Unbelievable Story of Rape", even though we use the quotes in prose.) — Bilorv (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Took me about fifteen minutes of research to figure out what the convention with that type of thing is, so I'm glad you agree :) on a somewhat-related topic, have you considered nominating this for DYK? Elli (talk | contribs) 00:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@Elli: I wouldn't mind if someone else handled a DYK nomination, but I'm time-limited and the way I've found these things work is that there's a 30% chance it would completely blow up in drama that I don't want to deal with. (There's also the inconsistently interpreted WP:DYKCRIT 4(a), Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided.) I am also a little bit surprised the article hasn't tendentiously been nominated for deletion yet, but there's still time (particularly when someone draws attention to the article on one of the anti-transgender subcommunities of Wikipedia). — Bilorv (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Love your challenges (and an idea)

Hey Bilorv! Mostly just wanted to leave a note saying how much I enjoyed coming across your editing challenges – such a fun idea! I think it'd be cool to add a Women in Red challenge or two. Maybe just in the form of a bonus, say, for completing Decadent with only bios of women? Or maybe a full challenge, though I can't think of any that would be quite off-beat enough to quite fit in with the fantastic list you already have.

A couple of other random topic-specific ideas that are coming to me as I type this, so take/leave/tweak them as you like:

-- ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 05:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the suggestions, Ezlev, and I'm glad you're enjoying the challenges. It's really funny you suggest adding a WiR bonus to Decadent because "a WiR bio for every decade 1900s–1990s" was actually the original challenge, but then I removed the WiR element. I will add that as a bonus. I've also added the "nonfiction bookshelf" (as "Librarian") and "Centennial" (as "Centenarian"). Really good suggestions that fit well with the others. — Bilorv (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
It's only just occurred to me, Ezlev, that the challenge page made it look like I came up with the ideas for Centenarian and Librarian, and the Decadent bonus. In editing the introduction a bit, I've added a sentence crediting you for these. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Not necessary, Bilorv, but I appreciate it! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 20:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

bias re: numfocus role in Messier 87

For context: Draft:NumFOCUS — Bilorv (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, thanks for your feedback. I don't think it's an exaggeration. In https://analyticsindiamag.com/how-imaging-a-blackhole-gives-us-one-more-reason-to-embrace-python-for-larger-datasets/ it says, "The imaging algorithms are the backbone of this project along with the funding of course. To run the datasets on these algorithms, the researchers primarily used Python. From arraying the data to plotting it for meaningful insights, Python offers a variety of libraries like pandas or matplotlib." (emphasis mine) So in other words, without Matplotlib, a NumFOCUS project, this blackhole would not have been imaged. NumPy, another prominent NumFOCUS project, also had a role: https://numpy.org/case-studies/blackhole-image/. In fact NumPy's role is so important Nature published an article about it: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2. If you just search wikipedia for NumFOCUS you will see that it has already been linked to numerous times: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=numfocus. In fact you will even see in Wikipedia itself that Matplotlib was involved in the imaging of Messier 87: John_D._Hunter#Matplotlib.

OK, let's be completely clear, the researchers who imaged Messier 87 themselves site all of the NumFOCUS sponsored projects in their own paper: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/abe71d: "Software: AIPS (Greisen 2003), ParselTongue (Kettenis et al. 2006), GNU Parallel (Tange 2011), eht-imaging (Chael et al. 2016), Difmap (Shepherd 2011), Numpy (van der Walt et al. 2011), Scipy (Jones et al. 2001), Pandas (McKinney 2010), Astropy (The Astropy Collaboration et al. 2013, 2018), Jupyter (Kluyver et al. 2016), Matplotlib (Hunter 2007), Themis (Broderick et al. 2020a), DMC (Pesce 2021), polsolve (Martí-Vidal et al. 2021), GPCAL (Park et al. 2021)." (emphasis mine)

So no, IMO it's not biased if the researchers themselves and several reporting agencies also assert that NumFOCUS tools were pivotal to the scientific achievement.

Mikofski (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mikofski: I didn't say anything about the fact being an exaggeration, but the wording not being neutral. For instance, an improved rephrasing would be "... the NumFOCUS projects have been used in the following scientific projects".
You are conflating coverage of (e.g.) NumPy (already articles, and I agree, undoubtedly notable) with coverage of NumFOCUS. In many cases, it is not appropriate for separate pages to exist on a body of work and the company that owns/produces it. (We sometimes call this fallacy "notability is (not) inherited".) To establish notability of NumFOCUS, you need sources that discuss the company. An example would be an article not just about the history of NumPy, but the history of NumFOCUS and how its particular funding methods or employee working conditions or recruitment strategies or whatever led to NumPy's success. Or an article on the commonalities and differences between NumFOCUS projects. These would need to be produced independently of NumFOCUS's involvement to be independent. More on notability in a couple of paragraphs.
Other neutrality issues include that there is a "mission statement" section. We (should) never quote mission statements or other such corporate nonsense, except in the exceptionally rare circumstances that the statements themselves have received detailed commentary (such as the infamously ironic "Don't be evil"). Instead, as a tertiary source with an interpretation of "neutrality" as explained at WP:NPOV, we describe a company's purpose in terms of what other groups say about it.
As such, the reason we require "notability" in terms of independent coverage of the topic directly is that without such sources, we don't have any way to describe what the company's purpose is or what it has done in a neutral manner. (There are many additional pragmatic reasons that notability arose, in terms of volunteer labour time and maintaining some level of consistent article quality.)
As I have now given the draft several minutes of further consideration, and seen the neutrality issues are greater than I first recognised, I am now going to decline it rather than simply leave this to another reviewer. You may resubmit when the issues given are addressed. I think the draft is promising, but not ready yet. — Bilorv (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Bilorv, Thanks again for your feedback! I updated the non-neutral text, and removed the mission statement. There are already several references already in the article, from the sloan foundation, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative already in the article that discuss the notability of NumFOCUS. Also, perhaps not acceptable, but NumPy & SciPy also cite NumFOCUS in their grant applications and awards.
Mikofski (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
@Mikofski: glad to see the improvements, but "NumFOCUS projects consistently demonstrate their importance" still needs rewording. I see that the draft has been declined again by another reviewer; I'm not an expert in business articles, but I believe that receiving grants is not considered "independent coverage" of the organisation. I wonder if Theroadislong has anything to add or correct me on. — Bilorv (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks again Bilorv and others for your patient guidance. I am going to take a break from this, and let others hack at it for awhile. Even though there is no doubt in my mind that NumFOCUS is notable, I am too close to the topic to be completely impartial, and after reading through the organizational notability guidelines and other requirements, I am having a hard time making progress. I need to focus on other things for awhile, and maybe I'll come back to it later. Thanks again! Mikofski (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

DenverCoder19

Just FYI, that's the second time tonight I've seen them use a weird quotation about the state of an article that was not verifiable by searching the logs, the first being here. I was also very close to reporting them for vandalism earlier, but held off because of an error I made in my warning by selecting the wrong template. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Here the user claims they're moving the discussion to Talk:Intersectionality and then does no such thing. When I look through the user's contributions, I hear quacking. I'm starting to think there's an elaborate prank going on, Sideswipe9th. — Bilorv (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Urnas Abiertas rejection

This article was edited by user Bill_Williams prior to review. Did you review the version prior to this as basis for your rejection, or the vandalism by Bill_Williams? 69.127.80.46 (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The edit by Bill Williams substantially improved the article, so it is unclear to me why you are calling it "vandalism". Even with Bill's improvements, the article is very far from meeting notability. Have you read the comment I left on the draft alongside the decline message? — Bilorv (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Improved the article by removing 2/3rds of it? This site is truly confusing. 69.127.80.46 (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm about to block this IP. Doug Weller talk 19:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Question from JoBro The Bozo (21:46, 19 November 2021)

Is an hypernova an galaxy --JoBro The Bozo (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi JoBro The Bozo. I'm a volunteer who can help with navigating Wikipedia, but I'm not an expert in science, so technical questions would better be directed elsewhere. When you ask a question on Wikipedia, it should related to improving a Wikipedia article—question and answer sites exist elsewhere if that is better suited to your needs. — Bilorv (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Question from Lewaah (07:16, 25 November 2021)

hello how can i create a wikipedia site to someone --Lewaah (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Lewaah! Creating a Wikipedia article is one of the hardest tasks on the website, and the majority of newcomers who try to do so before doing easier tasks to learn the ropes fail and quit in frustration. I would not recommend this task. We only host articles on topics that are "notable"—a technical term that requires experience on Wikipedia to judge. Your homepage should suggest some tasks for you that are much more suited to beginners. — Bilorv (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Question from Backthepolice101 (19:48, 3 December 2021)

hello --Backthepolice101 (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Backthepolice101. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox (found at Wikipedia:Sandbox) rather than doing so in articles, where readers may see the vandalism and editors have to spend time undoing it. If you have any questions about Wikipedia, just ask away. — Bilorv (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

sourced content removal

Information icon Hello, I'm 50.68.19.161. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Question from Dr. Bellana Seetharama Murthy (13:10, 12 December 2021)

i want to change my username --Dr. Bellana Seetharama Murthy (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Question from Dr. Bellana Seetharama Murthy (13:15, 12 December 2021)

i want to change my user name i had requested i didnt get any mail confirmation --Dr. Bellana Seetharama Murthy (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Bellana Seetharama Murthy and thanks for the question! I received it twice, by the way. I notice that you've tried a few different times to move your userpage to a different name. That will not rename your account. I see DanielRigal has already given you advice on how to correctly make a request to change your account name.
If you have tried to use this method then please be patient! You can't have requested it more than a few minutes ago, as you only just got the advice message, and all processes on Wikipedia are run by volunteers with busy real lives and other commitments. If there's a specific reason you think it didn't work then you'll need to give more detail in your question. — Bilorv (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Bilorv. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Question from Emm18033 (03:56, 15 December 2021)

Hello. I work for Adobe and we just launched a new product that replaces an old product. I tried to update our wiki page but everything is getting rejected. --Emm18033 (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Emm18033, and thanks for the question! The editor who undid your changes should have provided an edit summary and some clearer explanation on your talk page, but I've pointed them to this discussion if they want to weigh in. If you work for Adobe then you certainly have a conflict of interest and if you're doing this on the clock then you're being paid by Adobe to edit Wikipedia—it is your responsibility to read and abide by the guidelines there.
As you haven't declared your conflict of interest by creating a userpage (either with a disclosure template or just some text like "Hi! I work for Adobe."), I see you are not yet abiding by best practice. I would likely have also undone the edits you made to Adobe Spark. I understand that you're likely here to make some quick, uncontroversial factual corrections, but we still like to handle these through Edit Requests to maintain editorial independence and catch the people who engage in innocuous-seeming but malicious behaviour. — Bilorv (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Also, my apologies for not explaining the revert in the edit summary. I nearly always do this, but in this case seemed to have not. As @Bilorv: stated above though, there is an apparent COI that must also now first be addressed before any edits could stick. Though my initial revert was also based on a complete lack of citing and source for the reverts, or any explanation (which admittedly, in my haste to revert since there were so many, I too forgot to explain)... Thanks! ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 18:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Reverting and notability

Per my last comment. Both editors now know my opinion, and can reflect on that however they wish. — Bilorv (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello there TVSGuy here,

I pardon on the incident but something was not right when I went up to flag the matter about it. I know that Wikipedia edits are as equal as it was but reverting an edit claiming to be as not notable is merely more of being selfish. I had editing Wikipedia over many years and had learn quite a plenty of the things that were not just editing, but to the values as well, and if there is a dispute, I teach them something to make the user understand. If the edit was just for their own fun, such as vandalism, I wont hesistate to undo these edits and if it is repeated enough, I will have to lodge a report on that. That is how Wikipedia editors have to ensure readers enjoy more knowledge.

About that user, claiming that he was not new despite joining about a month ago, but what the user did was wrong and anyhow undo edits by someone without questioning the reason was too much, and that is why I went overboard.

For me, I am to blame for because I contributed that text, but that user should be sorry because he should have understand the edit behind it. I hardly revert any edits namely because I also treat them equal as an edit and to the users in question, but this case is just too much.

I beg if you can understand why I am in this mood, but I do not tolerate anything that have disputes, just like this one. It is completely unacceptable, and it is plain selfish. Thank you. TVSGuy (talk) 11:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@TVSGuy: your behaviour has been unacceptable. I've made no comment about whether other users have behaved acceptably or not, because that's not relevant. If you do not understand why somebody made an edit then you should ask them politely in the first instance: "I noticed you undid my edit without an explanation—can you let me know why, and we can discuss this further. In future, you should leave an edit summary or start a discussion on the talk page instead". You have caused the escalation of a situation that could have easily been resolved without animosity. New users are expected to make mistakes more than long-term editors (though we all make mistakes), and we need to be courteous and helpful in our responses.
You can be sanctioned for continuing to assume bad faith, being rude to people who are new to Wikipedia and commenting on contributors when discussion should be had on content. We all have bad moods, but it is a choice you are making to edit Wikipedia while in a bad mood. If you cannot behave appropriately when in a bad mood then rein yourself in from editing while angry. — Bilorv (talk) 11:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@Bilorv: I'm sorry, but I won't want to do it again, but conflicts are that hard and I should have asked them nicely. I will not do it again, and I did not know that I did so overboard. I hope you can appreciate and just give a thought. I mean, he revert the edit is one thing, but it should have understand the importance of the notability. Please if you can forgive me. TVSGuy (talk) 11:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the apology, TVSGuy. I really appreciate it. You don't have to ask forgiveness, and we can move on from the incident as long as you do indeed learn from it. — Bilorv (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Bilorv, I think I can resolve via dispute resolution, that should be one thing. For now, I will not edit the content or leave the user alone for now. Again, I did not aware that my post went too overboard and rude because of my mood, just to be honest. TVSGuy (talk) 12:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
How could you apologize for your behavior and then immediately go back on it by promising to harass me by saying you won’t leave me alone? I gave an explanation for why I made the edits I did. You just couldn’t handle the explanation and decided it was better to get angry at me about it by leaving the same comment about “flagging me” for doing what any user would regardless of experience level.--CreecregofLife (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@CreecregofLife: which comment are you referring to? So far as I can see, TVSGuy's last three edits have all been comments in this discussion on my talk page. I notice another user since restored a comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television that TVSGuy made and you removed. — Bilorv (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The comment I’m replying to contains “For now I will not edit the page or leave the user alone”--CreecregofLife (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I didn't even notice it said "or", assuming it to be "and" (as in, "I will leave the user alone for now"). I think this is just a writing mistake, but let's let TVSGuy explain. — Bilorv (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I actually meant that your revert in the actual article saying "not notable" is the thing here but what people and previous editors had also edit the Wikipedia previously had also contributed as according to it so you should have also respect it as it was and treated equally. If you think revert it just for the reason of not notable, at least a reason of understanding is required and why the revert is needed. I do not wish to go to content dispute but I will hopefully can close the case as soon as possible and I will not edit that article again and I leave you to do if you want. I'm sorry if this have went overboard, but that was the experience that I have also learnt in life. TVSGuy (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I am not harassing just to let you know, but one of the things is that just let him do the thing himself and I should not have act on. TVSGuy (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I actually wish if the user can apperciate the edits as it was to other editors and not blindly revert them because they feel not like being notable. That is all. Other than that, I do not wish to engage in a conflict and I will not edit the article again so to reduce the likelihood of future conflicts. Thats what we can hope on. TVSGuy (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I don’t understand what I’m supposed to appreciate about it. It’s not really a blind revert if I read it over and don’t find it notable. But alas, the decisions you make are yours to make.--CreecregofLife (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, but I am busy. I'm sorry if that plan didn't work out, but I still do not understand the meaning of not notable. I mean, many updates have been that notable because it is something notable, but you cannot assume that the edit was not notable because you feel that way and you revert it, and it's not right. I sorry, but just we call it a truce and we will respect, but what is done is done. I will not interfere again, I will do my own, and even if you are a new user claiming of experience (yes, I also and being a senior, and I also have learn something outside Wikipedia). That's all I can say. I will close case, and we part. I hope you can forgive me, CreecregofLife, and also to Bilorv, but I will not interfere him, but also hope that he will understand the meaning of an edit and its merits, and only revert when if it is necessary. Thank you.
And I will be on a planned hiatus after the new year, due to the life matters and I have to move on. Just to let you know. TVSGuy (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@CreecregofLife: here's my advice. When you make an edit like this, you need to provide an edit summary that explains why you have made the revert. If there is not enough room to do that, you can leave a message on the talk page and either link that in your edit summary, or wait for a response on the talk page before changing anything in the article. But reverting without explanation and telling someone else not to undo your edit is edit warring.
We have seen that I was not a fan of TVSGuy's behaviour here. However, I see that you are also behaving combatively. In addition to your comments here, which have not addressed the issue at hand in a productive way, you have been rude to other editors on your talk page.
On Wikipedia, there is a lot to learn, and while you do not have to defer to someone based on amount of experience, you do have to always be open to new information. In my time here, I've seen hundreds of people who are very smart and talented, but cannot succeed on Wikipedia, because they are not interested in improving themselves. I try to always assume that I am the one who is wrong, and that way I am genuinely interested in what other people have to say. I am not going to tell you how to behave, because that's your choice, but certain choices lead to certain outcomes.
As this is my talk page, I am ending the conversation here. — Bilorv (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Unbreakable Boy

Hi. You've declined the draft. But now 4 sources says that the film will be released. And the productions are notable. So the release date is not so important. Thanks. Firebanana (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Firebanana: notability is not so prescriptive as concerning a fixed number of reliable sources on a topic. I've seen articles with over 15 reliable, independent sources deleted, while others with only 2 can show notability. The strength of coverage (whether it's "substantial" and "in-depth") makes all the difference in the world.
In this case, the coverage is "routine" i.e. every film gets this same cookie cutter coverage, so it doesn't count for notability. Productions are only notable if they have coverage beyond this level. They need to show that the topic is notable even if for some reason the film is cancelled and never released (otherwise we're violating WP:CRYSTAL by assuming something about the future). A recent example is Rust, where an accidental shooting on set led to substantial coverage, showing notability even if production is never resumed.
From WP:NFF, which you're possibly alluding to: ... films that have already begun [or finished] shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. If the film were released and received no reviews then it would not be notable, so it's certainly not notable now.
I hope this addresses your confusion. — Bilorv (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Bilorv, thank you very much for your explained response. I'll wait for more reliable sources and reviews. If I add some reliable sources, will it be notable? It is my first film article. So I'm very excited! Firebanana (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
@Firebanana: I wouldn't expect more reliable sources to show notability because I don't think it is notable at this stage. But I've not researched the topic enough to know. I really would suggest you work on a book article while waiting for the film's release, because it's surely notable if it was successful enough to be adapted into a film. — Bilorv (talk) 08:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for suggestion. Firebanana (talk) 08:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Question from JubailiBrosDubai (08:48, 24 December 2021)

How to create wikipedia --JubailiBrosDubai (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, JubailiBrosDubai, I do not understand your question. Can you explain a bit more? — Bilorv (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Question from BreRoberts (03:40, 25 December 2021)

I was wondering why in user talk my post was deleted? --BreRoberts (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@BreRoberts: your only edit with this account other than asking me this question is a message at User talk:73.95.104.131, as can be seen at Special:Contributions/BreRoberts. Reading that message makes me a bit concerned by your intentions here. Wikipedia is not a place for original research or investigation, and we only report on topics with substantial pre-existing coverage in reliable, independent sources, referred to by the jargon "notable topics". All of our behind-the-scenes pages are also explicitly only there so that we can discuss improvements to Wikipedia articles, not discussion forums for the topics themselves. Please ask any follow-up questions you have, and thanks for reaching out! — Bilorv (talk) 09:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Idea for a challenge

Hi Bilorv! Idea for a challenge for User:Bilorv/Challenges: Choose an article and make every article linked from it a GA. (Bonus: Make them all FAs.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely evil, Sdkb. I love it! I'm thinking of what restrictions I want to impose: you can't have created or altered the links on the article; you can "bank" what articles you have to improve when you start the Challenge by noting a particular permalink; and we need a minimum of 5 links. Only links in prose count, and maybe we need to discount country links (which are generally overlinks). Maybe also that you have to improve the chosen article itself to GA (I don't want people picking sub-stubs which would be better off merged/deleted). I can see this becoming easily the hardest Challenge listed, but there's a couple others that I think are extremely difficult. Let me know if you have any thoughts on possible conditions. — Bilorv (talk) 10:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
It depends how diabolical we want to be lol. I was thinking allow people to choose any article they want, not just GAs (maybe doing it on a GA is the bonus), to allow some tailoring of the challenge level. Having a minimum of five links sounds good; even permastubs like Agatheira or Amastra subsoror pass that and would be a major challenge. Using a permalink also sounds reasonable. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@Sdkb: I meant that the article itself could be one that you have to improve to GA. But the problem I'm seeing overall is that even for the most specialised topic, there'll probably be a fair few links to very large-scope topics. Agatheira links to Hellenistic period and Anatolia; Amastra subsoror links to species, Mollusca and Maui. A few Special:Random-chosen articles have similar high-importance links (cricket, village, genus). So I'm worried the challenge would be impossible. Perhaps there's some measurable level of improvement below GA that would make this more attainable?
Another option is maybe to focus on articles that link to a particular topic—that way, if you pick a very specialised topic it should only be linked from still quite specialised articles. There'd be some rules about discounting navbox links, having a minimum of five links and not tampering with any links yourself. — Bilorv (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year!

Hi Bilorv, Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

regarding draft: physics wallah

hello bilorv, i notice you've declined the submission of the aforementioned draft. well - although i do intend to re-submit at least once, i shall first clarify what i feel and know about the subject (from a neutral pov).

physics wallah does have significant coverage online - i mean, if you look it up, you'll find that it does receive its significant share of attention. it's not just "another youtube channel with a bunch of subscribers" and that also has nothing to do with the actual reason I wrote this draft article. physics wallah is an educational channel - a massive and influential one, i might add - and has a colossal following, too. i know it sounds as if i am advertising at this point; but be rest assured, im not. that is just why i feel the subject deserves its own article.

there's a lot of allusion to physics wallah on the internet - but to be honest, i am just afraid most of them aren't reliable sources - and that is why i don't wish to cite them. ergo, i request you to help me out on this one a bit. thanks! Dissoxciate (talk) 01:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dissoxciate: my rejection is not due to any research I did, but just due to reading the draft, as the onus is on the writer to show notability, not for me to find it. This is because we have a backlog of several thousand drafts and have just a handful of volunteers willing to review them (one of the less pleasant activities on Wikipedia). If Physics Wallah has a lot of attention but little of it is reliable then we cannot host an article on Physics Wallah. Wikipedia has a deliberately limited scope for several reasons, those including that if we host an article on a topic then we need to have enough to write about it that we can prove is correct, and that a large number of people try to undermine our project with self-promotion (I know you're not doing that here, but that's the reason).
Given that there was a (quite well-attended) deletion discussion for Physics Wallah and the article was deleted, unless some huge new wave of reliable coverage has come then the community has spoken, and no amount of outstanding research or writing by you could prove a non-notable topic notable, because it's a property of the topic, not the draft. — Bilorv (talk) 11:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
right, that makes a lot of sense! ill apply for deletion soon, then. thanks for the cooperative response, and happy holidays. Dissoxciate (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@Dissoxciate: no worries, and happy holidays! You can request deletion by adding the code {{g7}} to the page, or if you just leave the draft alone someone will come to delete it in about six months. — Bilorv (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

sure, I'll do that! Dissoxciate (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

On adminship...

Hi Bilorv -- I've seen you around a lot in recent discussions on RfA et al., and despite not knowing you at all, I'm going to be bold and ask the obvious question -- why are you not running for adminship? Apologies if this is something you are not interested in, but I felt I had to ask. Happy Christmas, if you celebrate! Espresso Addict (talk) 01:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the question, Espresso Addict. I've considered running, but there are no doubt more than a dozen reasons an RfA of mine could fail spectacularly—some as superficial and nonsensical as the reasons for two RfA failures this year, and some of substance that I am always striving to improve at. You only get one genuine shot at RfA every five years or so, and a particularly bad failure could drive me off the site. There are also some safety concerns I have that give me pause for thought (I've been harassed off-wiki before), but you shouldn't let the trolls stop you. I would have ran via admin elections without a second's hesitation had they been approved. — Bilorv (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the considered response -- it's interesting to find a clueful non-admin who would prefer to run in an election than an RfA (if I had to run again, I'd definitely go the RfA route). Harassment is something I hadn't considered; I'm open about being a female editor and have experienced little or no problem in my years here but it's hard to tell how much of that is protection from having the admin flag. Anyway, enjoy a peaceful remainder of the holidays, and let's hope that 2022 is better than 2021. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict: I'm really glad your experience has been positive with adminship. I've recently seen one of the most outstandingly courteous and unfailingly positive editors I've ever known be subject to extremely nasty harassment that drove them off the site shortly after gaining adminship. But over the years I've seen very mixed experiences about whether adminship increases or decreases harassment and just plain rudeness that you have to face. The harassment I've had has been minor and short-lived, so it's intensification that's the only concern, but I think on balance it would be a risk worth taking. — Bilorv (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Four Award

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Why Marx Was Right. Usernameunique (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I Literally Just Told You

Hello, Bilorv,

I don't understand the tag you placed on this page and it really looks messy. Could you either tag this page for deletion, in favor of the Draft version, or request a history merge of the two articles at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge? Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks like Anthony Appleyard has handled this correctly, Liz. I'm afraid I don't understand what your confusion was. I wanted the draft history merged into the mainspace history, and explained how this need arose (I tried to edit the page but it was moved to draftspace, so that became a page creation). Deletion was not appropriate, nor was this sufficiently complicated to go to WP:RFHM. — Bilorv (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Question from Ndabe Smith on Sex (play) (12:35, 2 January 2022)

Sex p --Ndabe Smith (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ndabe Smith: hi! Do you have a question about Wikipedia? — Bilorv (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Question from Zippybonzo (13:50, 2 January 2022)

I was recently advised to remove and did remove an SPI Clark request by Bbb23 and I wondered how many edits and how much tenure it would be good to have before I reapply for SPI Clerk? --Zippy (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Zippybonzo and thanks for the question! As with much of Wikipedia, there is no hard and fast rule here but there are some general statements I can make that would apply in 95% of cases. I would be surprised to see an SPI with less than one year of activity, fewer than 2,000 edits or counter-sockpuppetry activity in fewer than 10 different incidents. However, you could exceed all of these and still be unready to be an SPI clark: I've got 8 years of activity, 30,000 edits and involvement in more sock cases than I care to remember, but I'm quite simply unqualified for the position.
I would strongly recommend that you do not make becoming a (trainee) SPI clerk a goal of yours. It's a very serious position and if you ever reach the necessary level of expertise then someone else will likely ask you, "have you considered applying?" Failed attempts, regrettably, can count against you, because we do have bad experience with hat collectors who go all-out to get a particular right as a goal in itself, rather than setting external improvement of the encyclopedia as a goal and only requesting a position/right as an afterthought if it helps them do that.
Anti-sockpuppetry is a particularly awkward area for beginners as it requires (for complex cases) an unrivalled knowledge of Wikipedia history and past abusers, as well as intimate familiarity with Wikipedia norms, wikitext and most areas of the community (to see what behaviour is out of the ordinary).
Instead, there are other counter-vandal activities more suited to beginners, which I believe you've been engaging in with RedWarn. I'd also recommend that you try to find an article you can substantially improve, with better sources and high-quality information, as this will broaden your perspective on the website and help you understand borderline vandalism and unconstructive but good faith behaviour a lot better. There are innumerable backlogs to give you inspiration. — Bilorv (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for taking your time to reply, I now think that it shouldn’t be a long time goal. I think that I should focus on Mainspace edits for the time being. In the near future I may work on some backlogs and other things that are mainspace. Thank you again for your time and I will set some other long term goals instead, for example reverting vandalism and gaining rollback rights. Zippy (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Question from MD Sobuj Miah (20:35, 2 January 2022)

yeah, --MD Sobuj Miah (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi MD Sobuj Miah! Let me know if you have any questions, and make sure to read the informational notice I've left on your talk page. — Bilorv (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

SwinCity league

Thank you for a speedy response. What is it exactly i need to do?

I am figuring this out myself and need guidance I am a visual person TONYSWINDLE (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Question from MD Sobuj Miah (00:19, 4 January 2022)

I created a page about myself (Sobuj Miah). I've been asked to delete it. Where I wrote about myself. --MD Sobuj Miah (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi MD Sobuj Miah! It looks like an administrator has implemented the request by another user to delete the draft. I don't think there's any actions you need to take, other than reading the pages linked in the talk page messages you have received. Let me know if you have any questions about this, or anything else. — Bilorv (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Begin Again

I have heard good things about that book but never got a chance to read it; you've given me the perfect excuse. I would be happy to read it and make some edits if I see any to be made. Thank you for your encouragement at the RfA as well. --ceradon 05:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, Ceradon. Hope to see you around a bit more in the future. — Bilorv (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Question/Update from SebastosOctavian

Hello! I saw your feedback on my draft of Macbeath regions. I believe I have updated it to Wikipedia's standards (filled out why it's useful, provided examples of use, and cited sources on it's use). If you would look over it again I would be most appreciative. SebastosOctavian (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements, SebastosOctavian—it looks good to me, so I've accepted it. I think mathematicians often find "no original research" and showing notability the hardest part of editing Wikipedia, as it's a requirement unlike all of the academic world. Let me know if you have any questions on anything Wikipedia-related! — Bilorv (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bilorv/Archive_9&oldid=1139815423"