1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
Draft: Cumulus (sculpture)
Hello Bilorv! Thanks for reviewing the article and for your comments. I’ve revised as per your suggestions and added more notable sources. Before I officially resubmit, may I ask you to take a look and let me know if all is good now? Also, based on your feedback, I looked into Cloud Appreciation Society more and it looks like they are actually quite an interesting and legitimate organization (see coverage by the New York Times, NYT Magazine, USA Today, and National Geographic. Expanding Wikipedia’s Cloud Appreciation Society stub will likely be my next editing project!) Anyway, looking forward to your reactions, and thanks again for the review. -- Silver Belle Elena (talk)
- Hi Silver Belle Elena! On the strength of Hedge Magazine, Our RISD, Cloud Appreciation Society (which I'll now agree with you is likely a good source, good evidence from the news coverage) as well as the existing Caltech, I've approved this through the AfC process straightaway (hope you don't mind). Just a warning that the threshold we use at AfC is "more than 50% chance to survive a deletion discussion" so this isn't a guarantee that all editors will share my current opinion that this is notable. Thanks for your work! Cloud Appreciation Society looks like an interesting next target. — Bilorv (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
January 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Angeli , you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Elizium23: since you're not an uninvolved administrator or oversighter and my edits have not been revdelled or oversighted, how best would you prefer I contest this unusual and unexplained invokation of WP:BLPREMOVE to remove my expression of an editorial opinion (as AfDs aggregate to reach a consensus) that made reference to reliable, high-quality sources? In a show of good faith and an attempt to avoid miscommunication or hasty admin actions, I want to state clearly that I will not reassert such statements or re-add the contested content without independent assessment that the content is BLP-acceptable. — Bilorv (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Bilorv, WP:BLPN Elizium23 (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Elizium23, would you mind creating a thread and describing the dispute, since I do not understand your reasons to apply BLPREMOVE and have just said above that I will not reassert such statements? I will respond to comments in such a thread in response to specific queries or in order to give general reasons for why I believe my actions are justified (e.g. "my statement provided a reliable source, X") but I don't want to link to the diff or describe what the dispute is about because my wording may in unexplained ways fall afoul of BLPREMOVE and potentially get me blocked. — Bilorv (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Bilorv, WP:BLPN Elizium23 (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Smithereens (Black Mirror)
I was recently editing the Black Mirror episode "Smithereens" and I think it's ready for GA. I also noticed that you have been nominating multiple Black Mirror episodes and that you were also one of the top editors on the page, so I was wondering if you wanted to co-nominate the article. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 16:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message, Some Dude From North Carolina! These are great edits but I've been working on these in turn to get them to quite a uniform structure (progress at User:Bilorv/Black Mirror; ignore "White Bear" as an edge case) and it's not fleshed out to that structure yet. That's not to say it isn't at GA-quality now, though I might be looking for more from the critics as a reviewer. (Specifically, I'd want enough criticism for it to be organised by themes rather than reviewer. Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections is one of the best things I've ever read but it pushes near to FA-level quality. The way I do it is in two sections, "Analysis" and "Reception", and I go through 10-15 reviews or so, pick out good quotes and ideas and then reorganise them all by topic. Analysis might have paragraphs like: "what genre is the episode?"; "what did people say about the main characters?"; "what comments on the storyline were there?". Reception could be: "ratings and overall comments"; "criticism of the storyline"; "criticism of the message"; "criticism of the acting and directing and soundtrack". Every case is different though. This works for Black Mirror very well but I understand other topics with fewer reviews are less suited to this.) But I'd like a chance to get more Production content (if there is more for season 5—haven't done one yet), much more out of the critics, tighten the plot prose, add a couple of good images and do my last-minute GA-prep tweaks.
- I've done three to GA recently and am hoping to keep the momentum going, so I can put "Smithereens" next on my list if you like (fantastic episode IMO, looking forward to it). Don't want to be overly OWN-y but I will flesh the article out before or after the GA review and I figure it might as well be before; and I've been going to The Rambling Man for the reviews as we've done quite a few together rather than face the potential few months' wait (though other feedback is always welcome! and I did try for a good variety of reviewers to build up this uniform structure I've had for the last couple of years). — Bilorv (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Bilorv: Thanks for the quick reply! I guess the article does need a bit of expansion, and that its GA-nomination can wait. Well, thanks for the kind (and very detailed) reply, and I hope you are able to do all the things you need to do for this episode. Good luck! Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 17:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Some Dude From North Carolina: took me a bit longer than I'd hoped but Smithereens (Black Mirror) is now a GA. Your edits were very much a help in this, so thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Bilorv: No, thank you! Your amazing edits were the reason the article became a good one in the first place. Your work has been greatly appreciated, especially since that's one of my most favorite Black Mirror episodes, so really, thank you. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 15:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Some Dude From North Carolina: took me a bit longer than I'd hoped but Smithereens (Black Mirror) is now a GA. Your edits were very much a help in this, so thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Bilorv: Thanks for the quick reply! I guess the article does need a bit of expansion, and that its GA-nomination can wait. Well, thanks for the kind (and very detailed) reply, and I hope you are able to do all the things you need to do for this episode. Good luck! Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 17:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Welcome
Thanks for the welcome but I wasn't logged in for those edits as I don't for very minor edits.
My main contributions are as cannonmc. Cheers 86.10.105.108 (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- No problem, Cannonmc—and the part of the welcome text where I say you're welcome to ask me for help anytime you need it still applies, of course. — Bilorv (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Relevance of Bill O'Reilly's sexual harassment scandal in lead of The First TV article. Thank you. --D00dadays (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
![]() | |
Two years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Draft:XSET
Hi, Bilorv. You reviewed my draft 23 days ago and declined it due to some of the changes I made being reverted. I'd like to let you know it's been fixed and I've re'submitted(20 days ago). Can you take a look at its content once more to see if there are not issues? Mondayudowong (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Mondayudowong: I've declined it again on the grounds of still reading like an advert, regrettably. Neutrally written articles don't contain such passages as
The origin of XSET comes from the idea of creating an esports organization that focuses on the inclusivity and channeling of efforts toward various causes such as the Black Lives Matter movement, mental health, and environmental consciousness
, or ® symbols everywhere—such things are features of press releases or adverts in newspapers. I notice that you've removed the paid contribution disclosure on your userpage—if you have been paid in the past then you need to continue to display this notice. - I've seen your other drafts and I have to give you this advice: if you're no longer being paid to edit then it's a really bad idea to keep pushing these attempts at creating new articles on internet figures and groups. It's one of the places on Wikipedia with the steepest learning curve and where editors have the least patience, because we're so overwhelmed by low-quality high-volume content. It's also hard to learn how to do things correctly in this area because 95% of our existing articles on YouTubers and such are crap that need rewriting top to bottom. Making slow, steady, uncontroversial improvements (such as introducing high-quality reliable sources to existing articles) in a more traditionally encyclopedic topic is a better way to go about learning the ropes. — Bilorv (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Bilorv. I understand. But I love the idea behind Wikipedia. This is why I've continued to write articles. I believe some things take time and I'd surely understand all of the main ideas behind making my articles completely neutral. But thanks once more. I will work on it again in order to improve it. Mondayudowong (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
For updating occurences of Abigail Thorn's deadname at the speed of light. TucanHolmes (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC) |
- @TucanHolmes: Ah, well I had a head start and still missed a couple (1, 2). ;) Much appreciated! — Bilorv (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
New message from J.Turner99
Message added 09:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi, I is it OK if I reinstate the article yet? It comes out in less than a month and has a wealth of new sources. Kind regards J.Turner99 (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- @J.Turner99: I'm failing to find new sources, so I really doubt that you've found multiple high-quality, in-depth sources about the book (not the author, like the recent Times profile) that make this an exceptional case of notability prior to release (999 out of 1000 books or more do not have this attribute). If you have then show me them. I strongly advise you that reinstatement will not go well for you. I see you have been causing disruption recently with ridiculous unfounded accusations and bad-quality edits in controversial subject areas. If you wish to remain unblocked you will not add yet another edit war over Beyond Order to the list.
- I would recommend that you stop editing American/Canadian politics-related topics effective immediately and focus on fully uncontroversial, small-scale improvements in other areas of interest you have (films? gardening? music?) so you can learn the standards of Wikipedia better. Trying to edit politics as your first topic area on Wikipedia is like running into a burning building to rescue people on your first day as a firefighter. It's no place to learn and you'll just get burned.
- Notice that the talkback template is used in the way you did if you want me to refer to a conversation at User talk:J.Turner99—you don't need a template just to start a discussion here, and if you did intend me to refer to a conversation at your talk page then I can't see a relevant one. — Bilorv (talk) 10:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Bilorv: Thank you for your response. The Times article does talk for a few paragraphs about the situation surrounding the book? J.Turner99 (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Also Peterson has realesed all of the 12 rules in the book so we could list those. J.Turner99 (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- @J.Turner99: What did you mean by "wealth of new sources"? You've named one source which is not in-depth and one which is not a secondary source. — Bilorv (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Draft:XSET
Hi, Bilorv. Trust you are doing great. I followed your instruction and I edited Draft:XSET by removing all terms that seem like an advertisement. I'd like to request that you have a look and let me know if anything else needs fixing. Mondayudowong (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Mondayudowong: yep, it looks like the draft is in much better shape neutrality-wise. I'll let another reviewer assess whether it has demonstrated notability for companies or has any other issues that would prevent it from being included in mainspace (i.e. made a live article). — Bilorv (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Alright, man. Thank you Mondayudowong (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Valentine Greets!!!
![]() |
Valentine Greets!!! |
Hello Bilorv, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |