User talk:Bilorv/Archive 13

This archive is updated manually by Bilorv.

Archive created 08:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from TheFixer237 (10:26, 31 May 2023)

Hello! I was wondering a question, is making a wikipedia page very hard? --TheFixer237 (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi TheFixer237 and thanks for the question! In short: yes, creating a Wikipedia article is very difficult because it requires experience in lots of different skills. The most important stage is the research stage, where you need to find sources and identify whether they are reliable; when you have reliable sources, you need to assess whether they amount to notability. If you decide your topic is definitely notable then you need to summarise the sources in your own words, making sure the reader can check which fact comes from which source. Then, you need good writing skills and the ability to format using wikitext so the article is readable.

Newcomers should start with tasks that help them develop these skills one at a time, some of which are recommended on your homepage. The ideal is to start by adding reliable sources to existing articles that are in poor shape. — Bilorv (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Question from Moma10167 (14:58, 5 June 2023)

How do I locate my old Texas dl number --Moma10167 (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Moma10167: welcome to Wikipedia! This is not a question and answer website so we can't help with enquiries like that. Behind-the-scenes pages are for discussing how to improve Wikipedia articles. — Bilorv (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Question from Futboljulio (19:30, 12 June 2023)

How do I create my own biography page? --Futboljulio (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Futboljulio: thanks for the question and welcome to Wikipedia!

Unfortunately, writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged: Wikipedia is written by volunteers who are independent of the subjects they write about, which is really important to ensure a neutral point of view. If you are "notable"—Wikipedia jargon for whether a biography would be within our scope—then a volunteer may create an article about you in due course.

You should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. In general, creating a new article is one of the worst choices of tasks for a newcomer and most attempts will be rejected on notability grounds or for insufficient reliable sources and verifiability. — Bilorv (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Question from Jajitz (13:44, 18 June 2023)

how are you?

please help me to know how i can add someone background on this artical --Jajitz (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jajitz: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I am not sure I understand the question but I will try to answer. To add information to Wikipedia, you need a reliable, published source that contains that information. Then, most articles on Wikipedia can be edited by anybody using the "Edit" button. Let me know if this does not answer your question! — Bilorv (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

well understood.. 49.14.133.143 (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft:BlueCheck Ukraine feedback

Hi @Bilorv, it would be great to get some brief ref-by-ref diagnosis of what counts, what doesn't, and why. While I am not necessarily expecting common sense from the Wikipedia review process, we do live in a world where being invited to CNN and MSNBC to describe one's charity seems like a solid case for notability. Not to mention the Yahoo Sports/CBS article about the charity and various other articles. Who else if not Liev would be invited to describe BlueCheck?

Separately, could you clarify what looks to you as advertising in the text? What can be removed/edited to fix this? IMHO, every sentence states facts covered in refs, without judgement or superlatives. Could this be a cultural difference? How else would you state the same facts. Thx

Igor Markov 01:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Just in case, I went through the guidelines again (neutrality and such) and am still puzzled by your verdict. In this case, there are no disputes or multiple POVs, there are no products or services involved, not even links to external sites, there are no judgements or opinions masquerading as facts, etc. Are you objecting to including charities? - there are many such wikis. Size and partnerships don't seem relevant to notability criteria. So, what makes this draft worse than wikis of other charities?

Igor Markov 01:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Igor Markov: a reviewers' job is not to compare the draft to other Wikipedia articles, but to core policies such as notability. Most Wikipedia articles are bad and a long-term crisis of volunteer labour means that poor-quality content can linger for years.

To count towards notability, a source must be reliable, independent of the subject and in-depth. Interviews are not really independent, though they could possibly count if there's in-depth reporting in a journalist's words alongside it. That throws out the CNN and MSNBC interviews though. Forbes contributors are not generally reliable. What is lacking, then, in the three sources that could partially count towards notability—Yahoo Sports, Town and Country Magazine and Orange County Register—is in-depth assessment of the organisation's activity in the publications' own words. Currently it is just the founder making particular claims. But the founder has a conflict of interest and cannot act as an independent observer in describing the organisation.

In this vein it has a non-neutral perspective: the passage Liev Schreiber explains that the team raises money, then vets and funds Ukrainian humanitarian organizations takes the founder's word as fact, like an advert, not like an encyclopedia. — Bilorv (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, that's clear enough. Igor Markov 17:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Question from FarenAmd (19:14, 15 July 2023)

how do i make a new page --FarenAmd (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@FarenAmd: thanks for the question and welcome to Wikipedia! Creating a Wikipedia article is very difficult because it requires experience in lots of different skills. The most important stage is the research stage, where you need to find sources and identify whether they are reliable; when you have reliable sources, you need to assess whether they amount to notability. If you decide your topic is definitely notable then you need to summarise the sources in your own words, making sure the reader can check which fact comes from which source. Then, you need good writing skills and the ability to format using wikitext so the article is readable.

Newcomers should start with tasks that help them develop these skills one at a time, some of which are recommended on your homepage. The ideal is to start by adding reliable sources to existing articles that are in poor shape. — Bilorv (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Question from AcornCrafts (13:52, 17 July 2023)

Hello there I had no idea that it was so complicated to write an article on Wikipedia. I tried playing in my "sandbox" and uploaded a test image that I had recently created and I got a complicated notification about the ownership of this image, even though I did not save the page...

I would like to write an article about an artist who is 84 and does not know how to do this herself.

I also want to write an article about myself as an artist.

Are there Wikipedia editors who I could aproach to do this for me?

I look forward to hearing from you. --AcornCrafts (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Question from AcornCrafts (14:02, 17 July 2023)

Hello there, me again,

Here is the only article online that I can find on Sigrid Hacker. I have used google translate as it was written in Greek:

https://tinosart.gr/today/artists/sigrid-hacker

Sigrid Hacker

She was born in Berlin in 1939 and received her school and university education in Berlin, Stuttgart, Nuremberg, Munich and England. He studied German and English literature and art history. She lived for a year in Bristol as a student and another year as a teaching assistant in Liverpool, Great Britain. He worked for several years for the official German cultural institute, the Goethe Institute. In 1968 he returned to Berlin and worked in various studios. In 1977 she opened her own atelier, where she engaged in drawing, painting and sculpture in clay and bronze. In 1995 she left her job as an adult teacher and came to Tinos to work with marble, initially under the guidance of Petros Dellatola. Now she divides her time between Berlin and Tinos, working alternately with clay and marble and painting. Her works have been presented in individual and group exhibitions in Europe and the USA.

I would like to write about her as she lives next door to me and has lived an incredible life.

I can personally take the photos of her studio and her work as well as a portrait shot of her for the page. --AcornCrafts (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@AcornCrafts: thanks for your question! Unfortunately, it seems that from your description this project may need to take place outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia limits its scope to what we call "notable" topics: those that have in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. There are several reasons for this, including the volunteer time needed to maintain articles, check that information is true, prevent hoaxes and prevent advertising. "Notability" is not meant to be a badge of honour—many fantastic people do not have a biography on Wikipedia and many unsavoury individuals do.

We do use all sorts of sources, so books, physical newspapers and magazines etc. can all be acceptable. Artists can be notable for exhibitions where their art is the main focus. But if further search does not turn up more sources then we couldn't host an article on Hacker.

Additionally, we strongly discourage people from writing about themselves on Wikipedia. This is part of editorial independence: our users assume that they are reading something neutral, independently fact-checked by somebody with no conflict of interest. If you are notable then a volunteer may choose to write about you in the future. This is not necessarily a good thing—for example, any negative critical reviews your art has received would likely be included in an article about you. — Bilorv (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I won't write about myself then, but have gallery brochures and other information about Sigrid Hacker that I would like to write about. She is a very interesting artist and deserves to be written about. She is 84 and still scupting and firing large pieces in her kiln. She is notable and worthy of a place on Wikipedia. AcornCrafts (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@AcornCrafts: you might like to first collect the sources you can find on Hacker in some page in your userspace, like User:AcornCrafts/sandbox. (Anything in article space can be edited by others or deleted immediately.) I'm happy to take a look once you've gathered all the sources you can! — Bilorv (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your support AcornCrafts (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Black Mirror: Bandersnatch

Hi. "Mixed reviews" is actually unsourced. The Reception section stated "mixed reviews" one time without a source before the Rotten Tomatoes sentence. Rotten Tomatoes' Tomatometer rating cannot be used to generalize the reception and none of the other "detailed content" mentions anything about mixed reception. When the reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources, it is clearly WP:SYNTH. ภץאคгöร 15:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

(For reference: this edit sequence.) @Nyxaros: yes, your position makes sense to me. I've given mine once so I won't repeat it.

It does not make sense for this descriptor to be removed at one of the 23 pre-series 6 Black Mirror instalment GA/FA articles and left at the other 22, so we can open discussion at Talk:Black Mirror if you'd like. Or wider: the discussion I linked was over an unrelated GA that summarised, It received mixed to negative reviews from professional critics .... I don't see why that would be a different case.

Clearly you accept some degree of summary does not violate SYNTH, as you were happy to rewrite: Critics praised the technical design of the film but criticised the story's characterisation. So the question is not black-and-white, but about where a line should be drawn. If consensus is against me, that's fine by me, but I want more opinions before changing longstanding practice at this good topic. — Bilorv (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nyxaros: I can start a wider discussion if you'd like per the points above, but after further thought I've got an alternate solution. Rotten Tomatoes' summary for Bandersnatch is that: While Bandersnatch marks an innovative step forward for interactive content, its meta narrative can't quite sustain interest over multiple viewings — though it provides enough trademark Black Mirror tech horror to warrant at least one watch.

This is a description of mixed reception: in fact it is very similar to our summary in the lead, Critics praised the technical design of the film [innovative step forward] but criticised the story's characterisation. There was mixed commentary about the narrative [its meta narrative can't quite sustain interest...] and the extent to which viewer choices affected the story.

So unless you object, I'll add the content back with Rotten Tomatoes given as an inline citation. Note that we don't claim there were mixed reviews as you mentioned in an edit summary: the claims are The film received mixed reception from critics and Critical reception was mixed, which is completely consistent with Rotten Tomatoes' summary that 3/4 of reviews were mostly positive, 1/4 were mostly negative, and some aspects were "praised" while others were "criticised". — Bilorv (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I wouldn't say that the critics consensus explains the mixed reaction to the film as a whole, and don't agree to "3/4 of reviews were mostly positive" = mixed. I think what is written in the lead right now is sufficient as it directly reflect/summarizes the section (the critics consensus and reviews below). I added MC, which states "generally favorable" response. ภץאคгöร 12:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nyxaros: I'll agree to disagree. — Bilorv (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Question from Zulqarnainchand (07:42, 20 July 2023)

Hi. Good day, Dear, I have queries about creating a Wikipedia page. Can you suggest me articles about how to create Wikipedia pages that do not get deleted? I just want to share more recent researched articles data or Biography of some famous persons. --Zulqarnainchand (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Zulqarnainchand: thanks for the question and welcome to Wikipedia! Creating a Wikipedia article is very difficult because it requires experience in lots of different skills. The most important stage is the research stage, where you need to find sources and identify whether they are reliable; when you have reliable sources, you need to assess whether they amount to notability. If you decide your topic is definitely notable then you need to summarise the sources in your own words, making sure the reader can check which fact comes from which source. Then, you need good writing skills and the ability to format using wikitext so the article is readable.

Newcomers should start with tasks that help them develop these skills one at a time, some of which are recommended on your homepage. The ideal is to start by adding reliable sources to existing articles that are in poor shape. — Bilorv (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Tearfully

(Just for anyone else reading, this is in regard to this edit.)

Hi, Bilorv. It’s something that happens quickly in the midst of a dramatic moment that takes place at night, but Kenny crying during the ending is definitely a fact of the episode rather than a subjective interpretation: he visibly sheds a tear when his mother says, “there’s a video of you…” if one looks at his illuminated left cheek (which is on our right). I figured I should run it by you before reinstating it, though. Hmm1994 (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hmm1994: good spot—I rewatched the scene when I made that edit and still missed it. He's covered in blood and it's dark. The phrase was "tearfully hangs up" so I focused on when he puts the phone down. I've just rewatched and found the tear at the line "there's a video of you". But perhaps it's better left out because "tearfully" implies something about his intended emotion that I think is ambiguous (though I have my own interpretation).

On "group of hackers" vs "hackers", it may sound petty but I'll explain my reasoning as best I can and I'm interested to know what you think. Whether there are one or many hackers is another ambiguity of the episode (I don't know why this one has so many...). Yes, Kenny and Hector use "they" and the hacker(s) uses "we", but it is left deliberately open whether it's one person or a group, what the intended motives are, and whether figures present at the scene are involved or oblivious (the guy on his phone as they leave the hotel; the guy outside the bank that leads Hector to move his car). Unfortunately the English language doesn't give us an easy way to resolve ambiguity over singular/plural. The word needs to be used several times throughout the article so we can't have "hacker or hackers" every time, and "hacker(s)" is too informal. So my best solution is to avert mention where possible and use "hackers". But I think "group of hackers" puts more emphasis than is known on it being multiple people. — Bilorv (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

That works. The episode doesn't make it clear whether it's just one hacker, two hackers or even three or more (my belief is that it would have to be at least three, but that's neither here nor there). Solo blackmailers might call themselves "we" when addressing their victim(s) for the purpose of intimidation, and the terms "single", "pair" and "group" aren't interchangeable, either. So, like you said, it's best not to draw too much attention to the issue and just use "hackers" instead. The terms "blackmailers" and "extortionists" are also acceptable substitutes if you find the use of "hackers" redundant.

It's definitely a little hard to judge what he's thinking in that moment, but out of interest, what was your own interpretation you mentioned? Hmm1994 (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hmm1994: my interpretation is that Kenny is genuinely ashamed of what he has done, though he hasn't learned from it. It's easy to go the other way and say that he's just killed a man and regrets nothing except getting caught. But Kenny's actions from the moment the blackmail began are fight-or-flight. The more we can picture Kenny as ourselves or a loved one, the more of a lesson there is: people are not black and white, and "nice" people are capable of committing and compartmentalising great evil. (Of course none of this is to defend anything Kenny does.) — Bilorv (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Question from Higiro123 (10:43, 2 August 2023)

how to hack --Higiro123 (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Higiro123: welcome to Wikipedia! Your question is not clear. Feel free to ask me a question about how to contribute to Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Asim Chaudhry

Hi, how can I provide a valid source to prove that this is his birth-name (I am already sure of it but you mentioned it whilst undoing my edits). Jaunpurzada (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jaunpurzada: every fact in Wikipedia needs a reliable source and almost every fact should have a secondary source, to show why we should select to repeat that one fact out of the many possible facts. The source needs to directly say the claim you are making in Wikipedia; you can't combine sources or make inferences from them.

If you want to claim Asim Chaudhry comes from a "family of Chaudhries" with a link to Chowdhury then you need a source that says precisely that: that Chaudhry's heritage is from this particular title under empire. — Bilorv (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Suneel1400 on Wikipedia:Project namespace (10:03, 11 August 2023)

My ac security --Sunil Kumar (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Suneel1400: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! If you are trying to ask a question, I'm afraid it's not clear. Can you ask again? — Bilorv (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Mario Party DS

Hello, thank you for the feedback you left for Mario Party DS's good article nomination.

• I removed information provided from YouTube sources (along with the corresponsing references), replacing it with information from the game's manual.
• The "Development" section has been expanded with information from the article's lead, supported by a Nintendo Life reference.
• The free use rational for "File:MarioPArtyDS.jpg" has been altered.
• I have also made all of the other minor fixes (such as removing redundant information) you mentioned.

If there is anything else I can do to improve the quality of this article, please let me know. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Content By Karma (05:59, 30 August 2023)

Hello... I am exploring Wikipedia to write articles about my district and workplace. nice to know you --Content By Karma (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Content By Karma and welcome to Wikipedia! It's great to write about topics you're both passionate about and interested in, but note that every fact you add to Wikipedia has to be backed up by a reliable source (not just something you know is true) and if you have a professional/financial conflict of interest with the topic then some rules apply on how you can edit. — Bilorv (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Question from Jitendra VK Pandey (11:34, 2 September 2023)

Hi, how can i issued by sandbox article to live Wikipedia page --Jitendra VK Pandey (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jitendra VK Pandey and thanks for the question! Wikipedia is written by volunteers with a neutral point of view, so it is important that users with a conflict of interest disclose it. You are strongly discouraged from writing about yourself. If a person meets our notability criteria then an unrelated volunteer may create an article in due course, but articles can contain negative information that the subject does not wish to broadcast. You should not submit User:Jitendra VK Pandey/sandbox for publication as it lacks the reliable sources to show notability. — Bilorv (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the August 2023 GAN backlog drive

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	We really appreciate that you reviewed several GANs during the drive. Due in part to your efforts, the backlog of unreviewed nominations was reduced by 440 articles, an astonishing 69 percent.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from Zippybonzo (19:27, 8 September 2023)

Well, I'm not really a newcomer anymore, but I kinda wanna find somewhere to invest my time into these days and I think you can probably help me. --Zippybonzo | talk to me | what have I done (he|she|they) 19:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Zippybonzo: hello! I don't want to patronise you with something you already know, so is there some type of activity you're looking for in particular? Or some area you've considering breaking into but find hard to navigate? — Bilorv (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, articles as a whole, both improving and writing them are definitely somewhere I want to break into but don't really know my way around. Zippybonzo | talk to me | what have I done (he|she|they) 08:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Zippybonzo: it depends a lot what topic area you're interested in, but the general process of writing a new article should be similar.

The longest and most important step in article creation should be research: what sources are going to demonstrate notability? Even after hundreds of creations, I still regularly abandon topics during this stage if too few sources exist (so far as I can access). A good topic for an article is a book because WP:NBOOK#1 gives very clear criteria that are met for many books that we don't have articles on.

The general-purpose WP:RSP and some subject-specific lists like WP:VG/S (if it's a video game article) give insight into whether sources are usable, but ultimately reliability is contextual (not every "reliable" source is reliable on everything it contains) and many sources you come across will not have been discussed explicitly at such length.

Then you need to find a good article to model on. Featured and good articles can be excellent places to look, but beware that if you see (from the talk page) it was promoted 15 years ago then standards may have changed or it may not be such a great article today. But, if it's an article about a book you will want some book article to find what infobox you need, what section titles are conventional and so on.

Hope this is useful! — Bilorv (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Award

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 18:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@All in: thank you! — Bilorv (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from Jajitz (09:22, 17 September 2023)

My mentor how are you.

I have some new articles and new background (biography) but i don't know how to contribute them to Wikipedia --Jajitz (talk) 09:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jajitz: if you are talking about creating a new article, this is a topic best left until you have gained some experience improving existing articles. Most topics that people try to write about are not "notable" in Wikipedia jargon—there simply don't exist enough reliable sources to write a fully verifiable article about the topic—making it a frustrating experience. It's much better to add references to existing articles, and any information those references contain in them.

If your question is about how to use the Wikipedia interface to make edits, take a look at Help:Editing. If you can describe the problem more specifically (e.g. "when I click the 'Edit' button on mobile Wikipedia I see a page that ...") I can give a more specific answer. — Bilorv (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from Itsbepul (16:27, 17 September 2023)

How can I create a wikipedia page ? If could help me it will very grateful. --Itsbepul (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Itsbepul: thanks for the question! Creating a Wikipedia article is very difficult because it requires experience in lots of different skills. The most important stage is the research stage, where you need to find sources and identify whether they are reliable; when you have reliable sources, you need to assess whether they amount to notability. If you decide your topic is definitely notable then you need to summarise the sources in your own words, making sure the reader can check which fact comes from which source. Then, you need good writing skills and the ability to format using wikitext so the article is readable.

Newcomers should start with tasks that help them develop these skills one at a time, some of which are recommended on your homepage. The ideal is to start by adding reliable sources to existing articles that are in poor shape. — Bilorv (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from MetricSupremacist (20:33, 17 September 2023)

Hello, how do you find articles to edit --MetricSupremacist (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@MetricSupremacist: welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for the questions! Take a look at Special:Homepage, where there should be a "Suggested Edits" panel. You can also edit articles as you find them—most articles should be unprotected and editable by all. Whenever you introduce a new piece of information to an article, you should add a reliable source so that readers and editors can check it's true. If you notice information in an article (except in the lead paragraphs) that does not have such a source, you can look for one and add it. — Bilorv (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Question from MetricSupremacist (01:24, 18 September 2023)

How do you add citations on an infobox template --MetricSupremacist (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@MetricSupremacist: Please see Help:Referencing for beginners. --Magnolia677 (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

To add to this answer, MetricSupremacist, the reference can be created just as it would anywhere else on the page—next to the text it should display next to (and within the infobox code). Typically facts in the infobox should also be mentioned in the body of the article somewhere, where the reference may be provided as well or instead. — Bilorv (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Challange proposal

I have a few proposals for challenges in your challenges related to televison. Names can be workshopped if you want these are the best I could come up with
0: Name: challenge requirements
1. Network Televison: Create an article for five different tv shows in 5 different genres.
2. Renewal(or rivival?): Get a TV show stub to GA class
3. IMDb: Create a article for every episode of a tv show(definitely not inspired by a personal agenda)
Tell me what you think. OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? 07:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: thanks for the suggestions! I like most Challenges to be as broad as possible in subject matter and EGOT touches on television, but there might be room for one more. I like "IMDb" the best; I'm not sure how attainable it is but maybe that's part of the fun. I'd be very surprised if anyone did this for a multi-season 24-episode programme (they'll get beaten to the punch on one of the article creations), but some limited series might have as few as 3 episode articles to create. A one-season streaming show might typically have 8.

I'll have a think about whether it's good as is or if I want to tweak the name/details. — Bilorv (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

In the opening it does say "some may never be achieved in Wikipedia's history" OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? 01:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: apologies on taking so long over this. I was mainly considering names: I mulled over "IMDb", "Showmanship" and "The show must go on" before deciding on "Showcase". I've added "Showcase" to the Challenges page and a requirement that the show has 6 episodes or more. — Bilorv (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Borutongwenya (06:19, 30 September 2023)

Do we get paid for this public service --Borutongwenya (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Borutongwenya: the volunteers who write, edit, maintain, create images/media for and code Wikipedia are almost entirely unpaid, which is important to maintain a neutral point of view. — Bilorv (talk) 10:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you note

Hi Bilorv, you wrote me this and it makes good sense. I will remove all my edits violating the WP:BLP. However I am not aware of any other WP:SYNTH and WP:OR violations, so let me know if you know if you have anything specific in ming. Londondare (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Now I see where I did WP:SYNTH. Thanks again. Londondare (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Londondare: thanks for the message! If any questions about editing come to mind, feel free to ask me. You can also ask at the Teahouse. — Bilorv (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, first question :). The first paragraph of the GDI page is supported by this secondary source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Development_Index#cite_note-Gender-1, but the primary source https://hdr.undp.org/gender-development-index#/indicies/GDI defines GDI differently. What has a precedence? The primary or the secondary source? Thanks! Londondare (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Londondare: I've not done the research into GDI to answer conclusively so take this with a pinch of salt.

Do you mean contradictory definitions rather than just different definitions? Wikipedia is not a dictionary so defining terms is not our aim; giving information about them is.

Generally Wikipedia is based on secondary sources for various reasons including neutrality and reliability, but a reputable primary source (as the U.N. may be) can surpass a mid-tier secondary source. If there are contradictions in multiple reliable sources then generally the contradiction should be described with attribution ("the U.N. claims X; a peer-reviewed paper said that Y"), if doing so is possible without synthesis. In either case it is typically better to rewrite information in your own words than to quote and you will find that many articles overuse quotations. — Bilorv (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I will think about it. I will ask for your glance if I change anything. Londondare (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Mkargath (08:52, 10 October 2023)

Hey, I have a few quick questions regarding my confidence in editing articles. First, how can learn and correct the tone of articles effectively. Second how do i know if i make a mistake in editing and how would i go about correcting that mistake, or would a more senior editor take care of that?

Thank you for your insight, Mkargath --Mkargath (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mkargath and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for the question. Because all edits to Wikipedia are stored indefinitely and visible to everybody, it's almost impossible to "break" or "delete" anything. (For example, this page shows all edits to the article "Cheese".) It is better to make changes directly than to discuss them on a talk page (like Talk:Cheese), where messages often go unread. Experienced volunteers maintain watchlists that alert them of recent changes. When the system works, a bad edit is reverted and the editor learns something new; a good edit sticks and the encyclopedia is improved.

It's good for all editors to maintain humility and recognise the subject knowledge or experience on Wikipedia of others, but in terms of content no person is more "senior" than another.

We have an exceedingly detailed Wikipedia:Manual of Style but the worst thing I could do is instruct you to read it all before editing. As you learn your way around, you work out which page you need to consult when coming across a particular issue, but you also find your feet by being bold and trying to make an edit. It's good to read the five pillars and follow a link or two, but don't get overwhelmed reading it all at once.

Your homepage can give you some places to start editing. Good jobs for newcomers include improving the wording of existing articles or adding new reliable sources into existing articles (either adding new facts or a new source for a fact already mentioned). The important thing is that readers can check the information is not made up, so even facts you are personally knowledgeable about need a source.

I hope this helps! Let me know if and when you have any more questions. — Bilorv (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Ashu singh x7 on Tony Griffin (athlete) (11:07, 11 October 2023)

DP my photo --Ashu singh x7 (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ashu singh x7: welcome to Wikipedia! I'm not sure I understand your question—could you expand a bit? — Bilorv (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Bryceevansmusic (19:11, 11 October 2023)

how do I create a musician page --Bryceevansmusic (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Bryceevansmusic: if you are interested in writing about yourself on Wikipedia, you should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If you are notable (which only a very small proportion of people trying to write about themselves are) then somebody else should be the one to create an article about you. When an article exists about yourself, it can contain negative information as well as positive information, depending on what reliable secondary sources say. — Bilorv (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Ideologue

From your contributions it's obvious that you are an activist who tries to cram racism into every article. Pathetic. 90.219.91.193 (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Please note in particular the first point in bold and that you have been warned for edit warring on this article before by another user. — — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 17:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Singalakha Mfenqa a DATA center on Jon Costas (09:24, 24 October 2023)

What is the permission --Singalakha Mfenqa a DATA center (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Singalakha Mfenqa a DATA center and welcome to Wikipedia! I do not understand your question—please could you explain what you mean? — Bilorv (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Deheripali (05:29, 26 October 2023)

Hello, can I give a submission without editing the main text so that my submission can be checked before adding to the text? --Deheripali (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Deheripali: thanks for the question and welcome to Wikipedia! In general volunteers must be bold. Because all edits to Wikipedia are stored indefinitely and visible to everybody, it's almost impossible to "break" or "delete" anything. (For example, this page shows all edits to the article "Cheese".) It is better to make changes directly than to discuss them on a talk page (like Talk:Cheese), where messages often go unread. Experienced volunteers maintain watchlists that alert them of recent changes. When the system works, a bad edit is reverted and the editor learns something new; a good edit sticks and the encyclopedia is improved.

Your edit to Category talk:Indian films by language#Sambalpuri, for instance, is unlikely to be read by anybody except those (me!) looking through your previous edits. I'm not too clear what your suggestion there is—if it's a new category, Category:Sambalpuri-language films, then I believe you can create this page directly and then add the text [[Category:Sambalpuri-language films]] to the bottom of the articles on films in this language. — Bilorv (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Question from Mkent95 on Royal Cemetery at Ur (03:50, 1 November 2023)

Want to add a photo to an ancient tomb of it in Iraq. I have a photo of uniform on a brick that I found in a wall when I was there. How can I add this? --Mkent95 (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mkent95: thanks for the question! If I understand rightly, you took the photo yourself? If so, that (generally) makes you the copyright holder. If you're willing to publish the image under a free license, so that anybody can reuse the photo and adapt it, you can upload the image to Wikimedia Commons. From there we could use it in the article (see Help:Pictures). As part of our mission to spread free knowledge, we use freely licensed images wherever possible. — Bilorv (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from Immanuel laia on Expected value (13:04, 7 November 2023)

Daftarkan semua anggota ruang contoh berikut ini:

(a) Himpunan bilangan bulat antara 1 dan 50 yang habis dibagi 8.

(b) Himpunan S = (xx+4x-5= 0}.

(c) Himpunan semua hasil percobaan bila sekeping uang logam dilemparkan samp sisi angka muncul atau sisi gambar muncul tiga kali.

(d) Himpunan S = {xx adalah benua).

(e) Himpunan S (x 2x 40 dan x < 1). --Immanuel laia (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuel laia: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! This is the English Wikipedia; other languages can be found at meta:List of Wikipedias.

Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia, so if this is a homework question then it would be suited to some other website. For instance, math.stackexchange can answer maths questions in English but only when the question writer shows their working out, makes a serious attempt at solving the given problems and explains where they are stuck. — Bilorv (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey! I’m not a new editor!

So why is it displaying the blue notice for new editors? Equalwidth (C) 17:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

When I’m starting a discussion here? Equalwidth (C) 17:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Equalwidth: I've written custom edit notices for users who are and are not extended confirmed. As your account has under 500 edits, you are not currently extended confirmed. — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that the current extended confirmed criteria is too strict and that it should be 30 days and 300 edits instead of 30 days and 500 edits. Equalwidth (C) 04:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from Duhgoby (07:25, 12 November 2023)

U cannot turn on the visual editor. Cannot find Preferences and there is no Edit tab that enables me to choose it, it is only txt editor. Please help me --Duhgoby (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Duhgoby: your preferences can be found at Special:Preferences, where I believe visual editor features can be changed under "Editing". Depending on your platform, the settings or preferences button may be in a different menu, but the link should apply equally. — Bilorv (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from CaptainMohando1 (08:04, 12 November 2023)

Hello, so how can I make sure this account of mine isn't a sockpuppet of a blocked account? Just curious. --CaptainMohando1 (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Plus, How can I edit and upload? CaptainMohando1 (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@CaptainMohando1: sockpuppetry is when a single person uses multiple accounts without disclosing that information. Have you ever had another account?

On editing: you just made two edits, to ask me these questions. You should be able to find an "Edit" button on whichever page you wish to edit. Remember to add a reliable source whenever you add or change information so that readers can check it's not fabricated.

On uploading: if you mean images, these typically have to be images you own the copyright to (such as photographs you took or artwork you have created).

If you need more information, let me know! — Bilorv (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

No, I'd never had another account. CaptainMohando1 (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from CaptainMohando1 (00:59, 14 November 2023)

So how do checkusers confirm someone as a Sockpuppet? --CaptainMohando1 (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@CaptainMohando1: the full details are best unexplained because then people would try to evade them, but CheckUsers combine technical evidence (such as the IP addresses used by accounts) with behavioural evidence (such as whether two accounts are editing the same articles) to make decisions. — Bilorv (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from CaptainMohando1 (23:06, 14 November 2023)

So how can I create a new good article? --CaptainMohando1 (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@CaptainMohando1: creating a Wikipedia article is very difficult because it requires experience in lots of different skills. The most important stage is the research stage, where you need to find sources and identify whether they are reliable; when you have reliable sources, you need to assess whether they amount to notability. If you decide your topic is definitely notable then you need to summarise the sources in your own words, making sure the reader can check which fact comes from which source. Then, you need good writing skills and the ability to format using wikitext so the article is readable.

Newcomers should start with tasks that help them develop these skills one at a time, some of which are recommended on your homepage. The ideal is to start by adding reliable sources to existing articles that are in poor shape. — Bilorv (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from CaptainMohando1 (03:41, 16 November 2023)

How can I block someone? --CaptainMohando1 (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@CaptainMohando1: only a small number of volunteers, called administrators, can block a user account. Administrators can either block an account for an uncontroversial reason, such as when the account is used only for vandalism, or they can block an account at the request of the community, after a discussion leads to consensus that the account needs to be blocked.

Any volunteer can report a user account at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (AIV) if the account is making obvious vandalism or spam edits and the account has been recently warned. — Bilorv (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from Mike899 (02:44, 17 November 2023)

what can i add articles on --Mike899 (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mike899: welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for the question! Wikipedia hosts articles on topics that are "notable"—i.e. that have received in-depth coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources.

However, creating a Wikipedia article is very difficult because it requires experience in lots of different skills. The most important stage is the research stage, where you need to find sources and identify whether they are reliable. If you decide your topic is definitely notable then you need to summarise the sources in your own words, making sure the reader can check which fact comes from which source. Then, you need good writing skills and the ability to format using wikitext so the article is readable.

Newcomers should start with tasks that help them develop these skills one at a time, some of which are recommended on your homepage. The ideal is to start by adding reliable sources to existing articles that are in poor shape. — Bilorv (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from MaryMellor (10:28, 17 November 2023)

Hello I want to set up a page for my mother Professor Mary Mellor, she has written many books etc, how do I go about it? --MaryMellor (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi MaryMellor and welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, I would recommend against creating an article for somebody you have a personal connection to. Wikipedia is written by volunteers and to maintain a neutral point of view we are typically free from both financial and personal relationships to the topics we write about. We have to disclose conflicts of interest and follow the associated guidelines.

Additionally, creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia are requires experience in lots of different skills. Most articles people try to create are complete non-starters because the topics do not meet our "notability" requirements—those of being covered in-depth by multiple reliable, independent sources. For biographies of academics the requirements, called WP:NPROF, are quite specialised; I find them difficult to understand myself.

Ultimately, if your mother is notable then a volunteer may create an article about her or her books in due course. On the other hand, we are delighted to receive contributions by volunteers within their field of specialism (so long as you are not directly referencing publications of your own). Subject experts have the capacity to make great improvements to existing articles, as long as they are happy to find a reliable source that verifies each new fact they add or amend.

If you have any follow-up questions, please let me know! — Bilorv (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

thanks for advice, here is an a wiki post where mary mellor is mentioned and citation is needed on here work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofeminism

Mary Mellor – UK sociologist who moved to ecofeminist ideas from an interest in cooperatives. Her books Breaking the Boundaries and Feminism and Ecology are grounded in a materialist analysis.[citation needed]

I am hoping this is enough evidence for me to create a page for prof Mary mellor?

Cheers

Joe 2A02:C7C:7A06:5400:D5B9:D376:9B:234E (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

No, this is not evidence that Mellor meets the notability requirements I have mentioned above. The "citation needed" tag is an indication that either a reference to a secondary source (book, news article, academic journal etc.) must be added to the article Ecofeminism so that readers can verify the quoted content is true or that the quoted content should be removed. — Bilorv (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Question from Rprenholato (22:22, 17 November 2023)

Hello,

I am a writer and would like to create a page for myself adding my recent novel that I am publishing. --Rprenholato (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Rprenholato: Wikipedia is not an advertising platform and a neutral point of view is essential. Volunteers should write about topics they are independent from. If your book is judged to be "notable" in Wikipedia jargon then somebody else may create an article about it, but you should not do so as you have a conflict of interest. An article about the novel may not be something you desire: if it receives negative reviews then these will be quoted at length. — Bilorv (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be about me. It would be something neutral and simple, mentioning that X book was published and a brief synosis. No opinions or appraisals. I don't mind if I get negative reviews. Rprenholato (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I won't advertise it, just synopsis, influence from other works, no appraisal to convince others to buy it. Rprenholato (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Rprenholato: I can only discourage you from trying to do this. You must read the conflict of interest guidelines. Wikipedia's book article scope is established at WP:NBOOK, which most books will not meet; articles on non-"notable" books will be deleted (however neutral or well-written). Other websites aim to categorise all books or would allow plot-only descriptions; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with deliberately limited scope and focused on out-of-universe information. — Bilorv (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from JN-2419 (18:04, 18 November 2023)

Hi , I'd like to write up a bio , is it the same as writing an article? Also , where is the draft section? I'd like to create the draft before publishing anything. --JN-2419 (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@JN-2419: thanks for the question and welcome to Wikipedia! Is the biography about yourself or somebody you have a professional or personal connection to?

You can work on content in your userspace, such as User:JN-2419/sandbox, before publishing it. There is also a draft namespace.

However, creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia as it requires many different skills. It takes a lot of research to establish that the topic is "notable" in Wikipedia jargon i.e. that it has received in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources. Most articles that newcomers try to create are on non-notable topics, so that no amount of good writing or hard work will allow the article to remain on the website. Many people find this frustrating as their goal is simply unachievable. I have created around 150 articles and I still regularly find that when I research a topic I am interested in it's simply not notable and I have to abandon the idea.

It is better to start by improving existing articles, where you can learn the process of summarising sources in your own words and referencing them so that readers can check where the information comes from. — Bilorv (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. The biography would be of a professional that I have a connection to. He has been interviewed (TV, radio , blogs etc.) and has a business platform to reference or site. I will take your advice and practice on existing articles. JN-2419 (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@JN-2419: thanks for the response! In this case you should also look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. — Bilorv (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this. This is a little more complicated. Appreciated your time JN-2419 (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from Ben Stockley (14:20, 23 November 2023)

Hi Bilorv,

I’m a photographer and filmmaker based in London, UK and I’m just working through the complexities of setting up my Wikipedia page and wondered if you could offer some assistance please.

I have added some basic information I would like to include to the sandbox for my page, including a basic overview and also a few link’s my work online.

I noticed on the bottom of my login page that you have been assigned as my mentor and I'm hoping you can give me some advice on how to progress.

Many thanks Ben --Ben Stockley (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) FYI: I’ve tagged User:Ben Stockley/sandbox for speedy deletion as a copyright violation from his website. --Finngall ^talk 15:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ben Stockley and welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, I would strongly recommend against creating an article about yourself. Wikipedia is written by volunteers and to maintain a neutral point of view we are typically free from both financial and personal relationships to the topics we write about. We have to disclose conflicts of interest and follow the associated guidelines.

Additionally, creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia are requires experience in lots of different skills. Almost all autobiographies people try to write are complete non-starters because the subjects do not meet our "notability" requirements—those of being covered in-depth by multiple reliable, independent sources. This means that no amount of hard work, skill or time invested will lead to Wikipedia hosting an article on the topic, as it is just outside of our deliberately limited scope (to make unpaid volunteers' maintenance work manageable and protect the site's reputation).

If you have any follow-up questions, please let me know! — Bilorv (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from Nyctomint (16:20, 25 November 2023)

hello! wikipedia has assigned you as my mentor, and as such I wanted to ask a question on the formatting of hyphens.

I've been slowly trying to polish up the article "Tiny-house movement" and have encountered a slight issue of consistency. with the article being, to put it plainly, a bit of a mess, it would be nice to have clarification on whether or not the term "tiny house" or "tiny house movement" should always be hyphenated (or otherwise) for consistency. should the phrase "Tiny-house movement" also feature capitalisation on the word Tiny whenever it is mentioned in the article?

a second issue I've encountered with editing the article is its lack of cohesion and general ideas that connect to each other, with it currently reading more like a long list of facts rather than a structured article at times. with so many parts of the article seemingly all over the place, is it also okay to shift around sentences and topics to better correlate to the sections they are under? I have already done so for some of these, but I am ready to revert those changes if my judgement was incorrect.

sorry for any inconveniences in advance! yours truly, --Nyctomint (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nyctomint: thanks for the question and your work so far! The more general stuff first: as I think you've already realised, you can't "break" an article with a bad edit because the edit history is stored permanently. As such, we encourage volunteers to be bold—either an edit gets reverted and you learn something new or it doesn't and the article is improved.

Some of the articles recommended for newcomer improvements are in very poor shape and need radical overhaul. Don't be afraid to remove obviously promotional or non-neutral writing, content that is unsourced or unreliably sourced, or completely reorder and restructure sections. Often these things will have arisen from lots of editors adding things piecemeal, some to promote their own companies or agendas, and no-one has stepped back and taken a holistic look at the whole article.

On the punctuation, we wouldn't capitalise "Tiny" mid-sentence (it's not a brand name). I think the hyphen would depend on whether most reliable sources use it or not, but it should be consistent throughout the article. It would never be "tiny-house" without the word "movement", though. (I'm not a grammar expert but it looks like use #3 of MOS:HYPHEN, "compound modifiers".) — Bilorv (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from NcNiharika on Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (22:51, 25 November 2023)

How should I know the score of mchat --NcNiharika (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi NcNiharika and welcome to Wikipedia! Pages on Wikipedia are for discussing how to improve articles, not question-and-answer sites. I don't have any knowledge about M-CHAT and it is not in my field of expertise. — Bilorv (talk) 09:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from Norah1998 on Outline of artificial intelligence (10:43, 26 November 2023)

hello translate from kiswahili to English --Norah1998 (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Norah1998: this is the English Wikipedia. You can find other language editions of the website at meta:List of Wikipedias. I think you are looking for sw:Mwanzo. — Bilorv (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from Kaif20zx (17:35, 28 November 2023)

Hello , can I create new page of Wikipedia --Kaif20zx (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Kaif20zx: creating a Wikipedia article is very difficult because it requires experience in lots of different skills. The most important stage is the research stage, where you need to find sources and identify whether they are reliable; when you have reliable sources, you need to assess whether they amount to notability. If you decide your topic is definitely notable then you need to summarise the sources in your own words, making sure the reader can check which fact comes from which source. Then, you need good writing skills and the ability to format using wikitext so the article is readable.

It is particularly important that you read the conflict of interest guideline before attempting to write about yourself or somebody you know on Wikipedia.

Newcomers should start with tasks that help them develop these skills one at a time, some of which are recommended on your homepage. The ideal is to start by adding reliable sources to existing articles that are in poor shape. — Bilorv (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from 2006 ROBLOX (20:28, 28 November 2023)

Hi,can I upload an profile picture? --Noob The Third (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi 2006 ROBLOX and welcome to Wikipedia! First, please take a look at the custom signature guideline: it needs to be easy to identify your username ("2006 ROBLOX") from your signature.

Secondly, Wikipedia does not have profile pictures. You can create a userpage with a limited amount of information about yourself or creative expression, but user pages are mainly to facilitate communication.

It is possible to upload images but only when you own the copyright: for instance, a photo you have taken, or an image you have designed yourself. Scenes from television, movies or video games, photos taken by other people and images you have found on the internet cannot be used in Wikipedia as part of our role in the free culture movement. — Bilorv (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Bilorv :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Question from Adith4Games on User:Adith4Games (20:07, 3 December 2023)

What to write if i create own pa ge --Adith4Games (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Adith4Games: thanks for the question! Creating a Wikipedia article is very difficult because it requires experience in lots of different skills. The most important stage is the research stage, where you need to find sources and identify whether they are reliable; when you have reliable sources, you need to assess whether they amount to notability. If you decide your topic is definitely notable then you need to summarise the sources in your own words, making sure the reader can check which fact comes from which source. Then, you need good writing skills and the ability to format using wikitext so the article is readable.

Newcomers should start with tasks that help them develop these skills one at a time, some of which are recommended on your homepage. The ideal is to start by adding reliable sources to existing articles that are in poor shape. — Bilorv (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Question from 2006 ROBLOX (07:13, 4 December 2023)

Oii, how do i change my singniture? --Noob The Third (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

See WP:SIG Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Olifanofmrtennant}}. Specifically, 2006 ROBLOX, it's at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal-signature. — Bilorv (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Ovation TV suggestions feedback

Hi! I see you’re a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television and I’m reaching out for help on a page I’m trying to improve: Talk:Ovation (American TV channel)#Updating this page. Would you be willing to weigh in on the suggestions I’ve made? I’d really appreciate the assistance. Thanks so much! Brennon16 (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Brennon16: rather than messaging several people individually, you can request conflict of interest edits through adding the {{Edit COI}} template, as I've now done on your comment. It may take a considerable amount of time for the request to be reviewed by an unpaid volunteer as it looks like a lot of sources have to be consulted in detail. Against advice you received elsewhere, I would urge you not to make these edits yourself. — Bilorv (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Question from User08ayanda (18:13, 7 December 2023)

hi.. my name is Ayanda and it is my first time here.I was wondering if you could teach me how to get around and get used to this because I am so interested 🤗.How do I edit my first page? --User08ayanda (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@User08ayanda: your homepage can give you some places to start editing. Good jobs for newcomers include improving the wording of existing articles or adding new reliable sources into existing articles (either adding new facts or a new source for a fact already mentioned). The important thing is that readers can check the information is not made up, so even facts you are personally knowledgeable about need a source.

I've left a standard welcome message on your talk page with a bunch of links in it. We have loads of behind-the-scenes policies and guidelines, but the worst thing I could do is instruct you to read it all before editing. As you learn your way around, you work out which page you need to consult when coming across a particular issue, but you also find your feet by being bold and trying to make an edit. It's good to read the five pillars and follow a link or two, but don't get overwhelmed reading it all at once.

Let me know when you get stuck doing something or want me to look over something you've edited! — Bilorv (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

thank you for the guidance I am receiving I will definately come to you if I need anything else ❤️❤️ User08ayanda (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Question from Noel Tarlinton (23:56, 10 December 2023)

I'm not knowledgeable enough to do editing. I tried to donate about a week ago and the donation was rejected. Also i would like to see a full history of my donations - thanks, Noel Tarlinton. --Noel Tarlinton (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Noel Tarlinton: thanks for the message! Almost all Wikipedia volunteers are unpaid, like myself, and there is a learning curve to the website but you can make things better as you read by fixing typos, improving the wording of sentences or finding reliable sources where you notice a sentence (outside of the lead paragraphs) is missing one.

To ask about donations, you can email donate@wikimedia.org, where a paid Wikimedia Foundation staff member will answer. Make sure you don't include any sensitive information in questions like these as this is a public page that anybody can view (with or without a Wikipedia account). — Bilorv (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red

Hi there, Bilorv. I see you've been cleaning up your user page and in the process have deleted all the user box templates, including Women in Red. If your recent article Rosie Jones: Am I a R*tard? is any indication, you are still interested in writing about women from time to time. And as I see you are keen to attract and retain new editors, you might be able to help us along on the WIR talk pages where we are looking for ideas on how to find more contributors. As elsewhere on Wikipedia, involvement has been dropping off over the past year or two. In any case, allow me congratulate you on the high quality of your articles, with an impressive number of GAs.--Ipigott (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ipigott and thanks for the message. Is there any specific discussion you'd like me to take a look at, or is WT:WPWIR the page to keep an eye on? — Bilorv (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

If you have any suggestions on membership (or on anything else), you might like to mention them in the "General ideas" section on the Ideas page. You are of course also welcome to comment on the main WIR talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Question from Kalibbala Emmanuel (10:37, 14 December 2023)

Can we learn about electromagnetism in physics --Kalibbala Emmanuel (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kalibbala Emmanuel: welcome to Wikipedia! We have an article on Electromagnetism, and many more on subjects within the field, but if you are looking to study the topic or ask questions then you may be better off on some other website. (Maybe take a look at Khan Academy.) These behind-the-scenes pages are for discussing how to improve Wikipedia articles. — Bilorv (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Question from Lerwern on Wikipedia:Request an account (21:35, 14 December 2023)

Hello I want create a new account --Lerwern (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Lerwern: you should usually not create more than one account. You can request a username change, with details provided here. — Bilorv (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Underlining

Hi! My complete apologies for breaking your talk page editnotice – I have no clue why in the world <b style> would break {{If extended confirmed}}. Utterly bizarre.
On a semi-related note (okay, a completely unrelated note) I have seen a similar illusion before. It was a while ago, but I recall the young woman looking towards the observer, whereas the older woman was a profile depiction. Best, HouseBlaster^talk 06:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster: thanks for the message. It took me a minute to work out that it did break, but it's well beyond my pay grade to guess why.

We actually have an article on the illusion, which shows a level of creativity and understanding of perspective that I could never dream of. Ambiguous image is also worth a look. — Bilorv (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Question from Krutoy.basic.guy (14:14, 16 December 2023)

How do I create an article? --Krutoy.basic.guy (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Krutoy.basic.guy: thanks for the question! Creating a Wikipedia article is very difficult because it requires experience in lots of different skills. The most important stage is the research stage, where you need to find sources and identify whether they are reliable; when you have reliable sources, you need to assess whether they amount to notability. If you decide your topic is definitely notable then you need to summarise the sources in your own words, making sure the reader can check which fact comes from which source. Then, you need good writing skills and the ability to format using wikitext so the article is readable.

Newcomers should start with tasks that help them develop these skills one at a time, some of which are recommended on your homepage. The ideal is to start by adding reliable sources to existing articles that are in poor shape. — Bilorv (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Talk

I'm free to express my opinion in the talk page. I didn't edit the page, but the talk section. You can't censor me cause you don't like my opinion. Instead of it, reply to me. Harukanaru (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Harukanaru: it is not true that you are free to express your opinions on Wikipedia. The purpose of all Wikipedia pages, including the talk namespace, is to improve encyclopedia articles. Some liberty is taken in allowing Wikipedians to share things that interest them, build a welcoming community and disclose some personal information, but you need to read WP:NOTFORUM and find another website if you are interested in sharing opinions not related to Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Question from Soltanon67 (22:53, 22 December 2023)

Hello,

My name is Soltan Adel, and I am the creator and founder behind Designed by Soltan, a family of mobile applications. When creating my first article, I found it difficult to compile the information while having to cite it, considering I'm the primary source. I also had it immediately deleted for that reason. Not to mention, it was also difficult to upload an image relating to the app without an error from the "Wikipedia Commons" telling me to upload an image taken with a camera. As this is my first time making an article on Wikipedia, there is lots to learn. Can you please help me resolve all of these issues I have run into? I appreciate your time and effort.

Regards, Soltan Adel --Soltanon67 (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Soltanon67: welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, I would strongly recommend against creating an article about a company you are involved with. Wikipedia is written by volunteers and to maintain a neutral point of view we are typically free from both financial and personal relationships to the topics we write about. We have to disclose conflicts of interest and follow the associated guidelines. It is your responsibility to read and comply with the conflict of interest guidelines.

Additionally, creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia and requires experience in lots of different skills. Almost all company articles people try to write are complete non-starters because the subjects do not meet our "notability" requirements—those of being covered in-depth by multiple reliable, independent sources. This means that no amount of hard work, skill or time invested will lead to Wikipedia hosting an article on the topic, as it is outside our deliberately limited scope (to make unpaid volunteers' maintenance work manageable and protect the site's reputation).

All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable to a secondary source. If you are the primary source then it means the information is of no interest to Wikipedia, a tertiary source encyclopedia. Most images also cannot be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as this requires you to be the copyright holder (the person who made the image) and to release it under a free (e.g. CC-BY SA 4.0) license.

In summary, almost no newcomers succeed in creating a new article before gaining experience elsewhere, and Wikipedia is not interested in promoting your company or sharing information that has not already garnered attention in secondary sources.

If you have any follow-up questions, please let me know! — Bilorv (talk) 11:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Question from Saru bist (15:23, 23 December 2023)

is it true if our article get post ,we get the opportunity to visit new country free and volunter there. --Saru bist (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Saru bist: Wikipedia volunteers are almost always unpaid and receive no benefits for their hard work. There are some international conferences that volunteers travel to, but I am not sure whether that is what you are referring to. — Bilorv (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

To Catch the Sun

Thanks for helping me with the To Catch the Sun article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:To_Catch_the_Sun.

I found a second Forbes article - so between those two, the CTV article which is pretty good and has video - but I could not figure out how to include the video itself, and then the excerpts reprinted in several different venues - and citation in Google Scholar 14 times, is that enough to cross the notability line?

As to tone - which sentences are incorrect? I tried to just say factual things backed up by the references at the end of each sentence.

Thanks Taylorswify (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Taylorswify: thanks for the message!

Unfortunately I'm still not convinced of the article's notability yet. The CTV article is more like an interview than a review, and volunteer opinions on whether interviews count towards notability is mixed. More critically, the new Forbes source has only a passing mention of the book: it's not an in-depth review. To take an example of an environment-related book article that I created, As Long as Grass Grows, we're looking for something like this level of critical analysis by a respected publisher, not quotes from the author.

On tone, maybe BuySomeApples can expand as I was not the one who left that comment. You shouldn't resubmit a draft if you aren't convinced you've addressed all reviewers' past concerns to avoid wasting volunteer time. — Bilorv (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Taylorswify: I answered your questions on my talk page, hopefully this helps! BuySomeApples (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Bilorv

I put in a full review in my last draft - and this book has been covered in the major media far more CTV is very big in Canada. Also a bot edited the article and deleted the book cover image I had found on Wikimedia commons and I found the original CC-BY-SA -- I don't see how to undelete it? https://www.appropedia.org/File:Tocatchtesun.jpg Thanks for helping me - editing is easy but this level of editing is really tricky. Taylorswify (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Taylorswify: Medium is a blog website that anyone can write on, so it's not a reliable source.

Creating a new article is one of the worst tasks for newcomers—here's the boilerplate I've developed about it:

Creating a Wikipedia article is very difficult because it requires experience in lots of different skills. The most important stage is the research stage, where you need to find sources and identify whether they are reliable; when you have reliable sources, you need to assess whether they amount to notability. If you decide your topic is definitely notable then you need to summarise the sources in your own words, making sure the reader can check which fact comes from which source. Then, you need good writing skills and the ability to format using wikitext so the article is readable.

Newcomers should start with tasks that help them develop these skills one at a time, some of which are recommended on your homepage. The ideal is to start by adding reliable sources to existing articles that are in poor shape.

After ten years of editing and over 150 articles created, I regularly abandon my attempts to create new articles when I discover there simply don't exist enough in-depth reliable sources to meet notability. — Bilorv (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

When I look at Wikipedia in general I feel like the article now with better -- I am at 28 references (although not all as high quality). Ok I understand about the Medium article. Does the CTV article count? So I only need to find one more? Does the book being referenced in Google Scholar count - or is that a waste of time too? At least I figured out how to do images now. I'll see what else I can find. Taylorswify (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Taylorswify: CTV is the best source so far but I'd be reluctant to say it counts per my comment about it above. Google Scholar is just a search engine so you need to look at where it is being cited and whether those sources are reliable and amount to in-depth coverage of the book. — Bilorv (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

A solstice greeting

❄️ Happy holidays! ❄️

Hi Bilorv! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. Congrats on reaching your 10-year anniversary this year! Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!

Cheers,
{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

Solstice Celebration for Bilorv, 2023, DALL·E 3.

(View full series)

Note: The vibes are winter solsticey. If you're in the southern hemisphere, oops, apologies.

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Question from James Jones Referee (00:34, 29 December 2023)

Good evening. I am a public sporting figure not on wiki.

How can I ad my profile please --James Jones Referee (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi James Jones Referee and welcome to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, I would strongly recommend against creating an article about yourself. Wikipedia is written by volunteers and to maintain a neutral point of view we are typically free from both financial and personal relationships to the topics we write about. We have to disclose conflicts of interest and follow the associated guidelines.

Additionally, creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia as it requires experience in lots of different skills. Almost all autobiographies people try to write are complete non-starters because the subjects do not meet our "notability" requirements—those of being covered in-depth by multiple reliable, independent sources. This means that no amount of hard work, skill or time invested will lead to Wikipedia hosting an article on the topic, as it is just outside of our deliberately limited scope (to make unpaid volunteers' maintenance work manageable and protect the site's reputation).

If you have any follow-up questions, please let me know! — Bilorv (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Question from AnsorMike (20:03, 30 December 2023)

Hello dear mentor, is it possible to create a 'paragraph' on a mobile phone? --AnsorMike (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@AnsorMike: thanks for the question and welcome to Wikipedia! The exact mechanism may differ slightly based on phone, interface (app/browser) and editor (visual/wikicode) but it should be possible to add a paragraph in any mode.

Usually this would be by pressing the enter key on the keyboard. You need a complete line of whitespace between paragraphs, so in some modes this might be two enter key presses.

If you're still struggling, let me know the problem in as much detail as possible! — Bilorv (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)