1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
March songs
Thank you for support in the RfC for DYK! Listening to the charity concert mentioned here. I created the articles of the composer and the soprano. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Gerda, two nice articles there. I always have a good time when I watch something that inspires me to create new content. — Bilorv (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Now, you can also listen on YouTube, and more music, the piece by Anna Korsun begins after about one hour, and the voices call "Freiheit!" (freedom, instead of "Freude", joy). Music every day, pictured in songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- St. Patrick's Day, more music and today's sunset --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- The Prayer on the Main page, finally + new flowers, and btw: the TFA is a young writer's first --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Bach's No. 1 today, + Rose Delaunay DYK, + 2 reviewed DYK (MV Millennial Spirit and Gloria Rojas), and ITN Artem Datsyshyn, also Oksana Shvets for some hours, + Michail Jurowski may come, - no support yet, not in three days?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- and came - sad record: three RD one day, not at the same time today but still ... - two of them from Ukraine, the third a Russian who left Moscow in 1990, and then went on to conduct the orchestra where my brother plays. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sunday flowers and sounds, don't miss the extraordinary marriage of the beginnings of the theme of Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1, and Prayer for Ukraine - here! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- April to come. I put my second wall-to-wall up, did you see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: yeah I did—very impressive. I'm pleased with how the Challenges are taking off. It was fairly quiet for the first few months and now it's managed to capture a fair few people's imaginations, I think. — Bilorv (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- thank you - dance and singing, peace doves and icecream --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- updated with a more prominent link to how to listen to the concert: Freiheit! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- another Ukraine day today: Maks Levin DYK, expanding Kyiv Symphony Orchestra (have tickets), and creating Anthony Robin Schneider, the bass who could be heard opening the singing in Beethoven's Ninth twice on 10 March 2022, live in Frankfurt, Germany, and recorded in Auckland, New Zealand, singing "Freiheit!" (freedom) instead of "Freude" (joy), in a tradition started after the Fall of the Wall. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Dove sono (Where are those happy moments ...?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Request for review
Hi, Bilorv. Thank you for your all works about the TBBT. I created the last episode of the TBBT. Would you like to review it? Much appreciated. --Victor Trevor (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Victor Trevor: I'm glad to see it! I've expanded the article a bit and rated it B-class. It'd be nice to push it to GA-class. Let me know if any of my changes don't speak for themselves. Most of my writings on TBBT are now several years old, and I'd like to think I've improved quite a bit since then, so some of the articles people have been using as templates may not be ideal. If you want some more Reviews for the review section, I'd take a look at these: IndieWire, Den of Geek, Digital Spy and Sydney Morning Herald. (I removed Metro (RSP entry) as it's not the best-quality source.) — Bilorv (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the edit. This is my second article on the English Wikipedia, which the process of becomes a GA would be challenging to me. In the future, I would like to use the sources. Thank you for share it. --Victor Trevor (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Victor Trevor: ah, I see, well it was a good start to an article, and hopefully my edits give you some ideas for how you could make it even better next time. Perhaps one day I'll try to take it to GA—I'll put it on my longlist (so it could get done tomorrow, or 8 years from now). Thanks for reaching out! — Bilorv (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the edit. This is my second article on the English Wikipedia, which the process of becomes a GA would be challenging to me. In the future, I would like to use the sources. Thank you for share it. --Victor Trevor (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Question from FastWolfPanther (18:53, 12 March 2022)
Hello!!! So where can I find all the among us game games list in order? --FastWolfPanther (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi FastWolfPanther and thanks for the message! I am only aware of one official Among Us game, and there's some information about its release and update timeline at Among Us#Development and release. I hope this answers your question. — Bilorv (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Will it tell me all of among us game games list in order though??? FastWolfPanther (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Can you also talk to people that play among us too?? FastWolfPanther (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- @FastWolfPanther: Wikipedia contains some information on Among Us, such as the article I've linked you to, but it is not a social media network, a forum or a way to talk to people that play Among Us. You will have to find other websites for those purposes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and all of the activities we take part in here are about writing, maintaining and improving our encyclopedia articles. — Bilorv (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- So does that mean that people can talk on among us? FastWolfPanther (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- @FastWolfPanther: no, Wikipedia is not the right place to talk about Among Us. — Bilorv (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- But wikipedia does talk about among us it shows a picture and it talks about how to play and stuff that wikipedia shows me FastWolfPanther (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hello!!!!! FastWolfPanther (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- @FastWolfPanther: please re-read my comments above, which answer your question. — Bilorv (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- All I said was hi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FastWolfPanther (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- @FastWolfPanther: please re-read my comments above, which answer your question. — Bilorv (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- @FastWolfPanther: no, Wikipedia is not the right place to talk about Among Us. — Bilorv (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- So does that mean that people can talk on among us? FastWolfPanther (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- @FastWolfPanther: Wikipedia contains some information on Among Us, such as the article I've linked you to, but it is not a social media network, a forum or a way to talk to people that play Among Us. You will have to find other websites for those purposes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and all of the activities we take part in here are about writing, maintaining and improving our encyclopedia articles. — Bilorv (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
It’s happening again
Someone Tried to vandalize the meidas touch thread I need a protection request again Persesus (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Persesus: I've fully restored the old version—if you meant to change the article rather than just restore the previous version then that should be mentioned in your edit summary. Protection should not be requested because of one-off edits, just for persistent vandalism by multiple different people (if it's one person making persistent changes then a block is likely better). If you need to report a page for protection in future then Wikipedia:Requests for page protection has a button labelled "Request protection" (in the blue banner) that should help you make a report. — Bilorv (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- You may wish to see also Help:Reverting for how to make a revert. The "Undo" button (#Undo) is generally best to undo the most recent edit, and when you need to undo multiple most recent edits, restoring an old version via the page history (#Manual reverting) is generally best. — Bilorv (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Don’t worry thanks Persesus (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
CrunchyOcean is heroicSSD
The crunchyocean account is heroicSSD. He is trying to undo the edits to the meidastouch page. Send word up the chain to ban him. Persesus (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Here is the name of the account CrunchyOcean Persesus (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Persesus: if you are accusing CrunchyOcean of sockpuppetry then you need to provide evidence of this. There is no "chain" of hierarchy on Wikipedia. Users are blocked or banned if the community decides that they need to be. That is by a sockpuppet investigation in most sockpuppetry cases. Administrators (a group that I am not part of) can only block at their discretion in cases with strong precedent established by the community (e.g. clear violation of the sockpuppetry guideline, as shown by incontrovertible evidence). — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- The wall of txt for one Persesus (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Similar wording too Persesus (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
RE: Research volunteer
Hi Bilorv! I just sent you an email about my research project. Thanks for reachin' out!--Gen. Quon[Talk](I'm studying Wikipedia!) 13:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Question from Layjend (21:00, 23 March 2022)
How do i get recognition on Wikipedia --Layjend (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Layjend: if you are asking "can I get a Wikipedia article about myself?" then the answer is "no". Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion and we discourage people from writing about topics they are related to. If you meet the requirements for an article about your career or any of your projects—called "notability" requirements—then someone else may one day write an article. — Bilorv (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Question from PaulFaulkner78 (12:28, 24 March 2022)
Hello- how do i create a new entry? --PaulFaulkner78 (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- @PaulFaulkner78: at this point in your wikicareer, you could only create a draft and submit that for a more experienced volunteer to review. However, I would strongly advise you not to do this. Many people expect this is a good task for a newcomer, or it is what they are most motivated to do, but the best outcomes on Wikipedia come from editors who start by reading our policies and guidelines, slowly learning the ropes by making incremental changes to existing articles, and building up their confidence before they do one of the hardest tasks on the website—creating a new article. — Bilorv (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Evaluating encyclopedic inclusion possibilities of LMH Oxford case
Greetings @ Bilorv
Hi, I am user Bookku. You might need to bear with my English since is not my native language. Any help in c/e would remain most welcome.
I came across your message @ WT:WIR there on went through discussion @ Talk:LMH, Oxford.
By now, on WP I have worked on the topics like My Body, my choice, Consent, Me too and women's march (though country specific), and mass sexual assaults and few other women's rights and interest issues at least to reasonable extent.
I am interested in developing more articulate Encyclopedic tools and process for content inclusion criteria here at my user page. I wish Talk:LMH, Oxford case discussed by you helps us to evaluate, discuss and improve upon better articulate Encyclopedic tools and process for content inclusion criteria in relation to Campus sexual assaults.
Would like to have your inputs in regard to how and which Encyclopedic tools for content inclusion criteria (discussed @ my user page may help in taking encyclopedic note of Talk:LMH, Oxford case in any of following articles.
- LMH, Oxford
- Alan Rusbridger
- MeToo movement#Education
- MeToo movement#United Kingdom
- Campus sexual assault
From open access links shared @ Talk:LMH, Oxford some aspects of obections against college administration and college response are not clear enough to me. I have not been able to access some article links being behind paywall. I would appreciate sharing of the relevant ones through email if you think will help.
Looking forward to your feed back.
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Bookku, and thanks for the message. I do not believe this topic warrants mention at MeToo movement or Campus sexual assault, as it is not uniquely significant above other examples. LMH is a small community and The Times reports on at most eight incidents of sexual violence there, which is smaller in scale than other reports at other higher education institutions that are not mentioned. Sexual violence at university is so common that there would not be enough room in either article for lists of incidents of this size. I believe it would be recentism to include this example.If you believe the content is worth including at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford and/or Alan Rusbridger, I encourage you to join the conversation at Talk:Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford#Processing of sexual assault cases, perhaps drafting a short summary of a couple of sentences that could be added to the LMH article.I have shared a couple of Times sources with you via email. — Bilorv (talk) 06:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I am working in my sand box incl. some comparative research and encyclopedic tool development and also with other things on my hand, it may take a week or so to come back. Mean while I will appreciate if you can share the Times' opinion piece too.
- And also I liked the term 'uniquely significant' but is it possible for you suggest a objective criteria or define in your own words what 'uniquely significant' would mean. This will basically help me in my research topic.
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Bookku: I don't have access to the other Times sources at the moment, I'm afraid. The term "uniquely significant" here means "a defining example of the situation, more historically important than any other". It has no objective criteria (nor do many terms on Wikipedia). — Bilorv (talk) 10:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. I will continue to work. warm regards
- Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
GirlsDoPorn
(continued from User talk:Bilorv/Archive 7#GirlsDoPorn case updates)
Citation number 39 shows an error. The part referring to Garcia putting a sponge in the model having her menstrual cycle. You can link that sentence to source 3; the court verdict document from Courthouse News. Seeley Booth (talk) 05:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Seeley Booth, and thanks for the message. I've moved it to my talk page rather than an archive page (which should remain static). In this edit, I've fixed the reference error using the source I intended for this fact, though the one you suggest would also have worked. — Bilorv (talk) 11:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Question from CynMTU (00:08, 18 April 2022)
I need some help with this. I wrote this article about the president of our university as part of a request from a faculty member. What does this mean that it was moved to "draft space". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Richard_J._Koubek
Do not copy-paste material from sources, or your submission will be rejected for copyright violations. - I did not Write from a neutral point of view and base your article on reliable sources that are independent of the subject - I did It is strongly discouraged to write about yourself or your own business. If you do so, you must declare it. - I did declare that I wrote this article and that I am a WiR for Michigan Tech. --CynMTU (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- @CynMTU: what you are quoting is general advice applied to all drafts, as they deal with three things that writers commonly get wrong. The article was moved from "mainspace" (viewable as a normal article) to "draft space" by MrsSnoozyTurtle in this edit with the edit summary "Articles by Paid Editors should go through the independent review process at AfC". "AfC" is an abbreviation for the Articles for Creation process, whereby writers submit their drafts to have them reviewed by an independent experienced volunteer. This is necessary in case where writers have a conflict of interest, as I understand you do here (you are being paid by an institution to write about its president). At the bottom of the banner, there should be a button to submit it for review, if you believe the article shows notability and follows our key policies and guidelines. — Bilorv (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Murder of Jordan Davis
"There was no gun, there was nothing that looked like a gun," said Assistant State Attorney John Guy during closing statements later in the day.
https://eu.staugustine.com/story/news/local/2014/10/01/michael-dunn-testifies-own-defense-jury-will-begin-deliberations/16100978007/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.161.58.217 (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, and thanks for the message. This source is not in the article as far as I can see, but all claims in Wikipedia need to be verifiable to a reliable source included in the article, and ideally as an inline citation directly after the material it verifies. You can re-add the content with this source (though I'd be very specific: Guy said there was nothing that looked like a gun, not nothing that looked like a weapon)—if you have any questions about how to do that then please feel free to ask me, or ask a volunteer at the Teahouse. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Challenges category suggestion
Howdy! I was looking over your challenges and while I don't qualify for any at the moment (that I'm aware of - Strom Thurmond Filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 has one too many "i"s if I get it onto TFA) I wanted to suggest a challenge based around CSD'ing an article with each individual rationale? Or perhaps each General rationale? Just an idea, and it may well be true that this has been done so many times by so many users already that it wouldn't be much of a challenge at all. AviationFreak💬 18:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, it's an interesting one, AviationFreak. I wouldn't want to encourage people to apply more obscure rationales where a more common one may fit instead just to tick one off, or to encourage vexatious CSDs. But then again, I already need a level of trust that people will not bend policies or good practice in order to complete the Challenges.I definitely don't think the Challenge would be too easy, I'll say that. We'd have to exclude criteria like G9 (unobtainable to almost everybody) and U1 (would just waste an admin's time to deliberately seek that one). I'll think about it—it may be feasible.P.S. the Challenges are deliberately very difficult, but some are designed more to be sought by concerted effort e.g. "Textbook example" or "Elementary", rather than something you would obtain by years of editing and some random luck. — Bilorv (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- today performances in Ukraine - for Ukraine - for peace, at the bottom an imaginary set of eight DYK, in eight positions, - please check if ready for the challenge ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely, Gerda, that fits the challenge, and a fantastic imaginary set it is. — Bilorv (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, added to the challenges. Today more pics, and should this woman have an article? - or only her sons? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- today Melody (not by me), and more pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely, Gerda, that fits the challenge, and a fantastic imaginary set it is. — Bilorv (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- today performances in Ukraine - for Ukraine - for peace, at the bottom an imaginary set of eight DYK, in eight positions, - please check if ready for the challenge ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Question from Chaoticinsurgency (23:23, 20 May 2022)
Hello is it ok for my first few posts just to be grammar fixes for I can struggle with spelling and writing long articles or even relatively short paragraphs. This is something I’m just asking because it doesn’t fell like I do much compared to others on some articles. --Chaoticinsurgency (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely, Chaoticinsurgency, in fact I would say that's the ideal scope for your first few edits! There's a steep learning curve to Wikipedia, so take it as slowly as possible. I regularly recommend against newcomers creating new articles: you want to study existing high-quality articles to learn what one looks like.You might find as you're editing that others undo or adapt your changes—I've done one of each here and here. Even if your edit is undone, as long as you learn from it, that's still a positive thing. Another good newcomer task is adding references (but they don't have to be perfectly formatted at first!). Stick to really high-quality sources that you can be confident in, not tabloids or gossip magazines or websites whether the authorship is unclear. See WP:RSP for some examples of (generally) good and bad sources. You can add references to existing content in an article, or add a new fact from the sources (maybe just one sentence to start with). — Bilorv (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Question from ItsHoussam16 on Wikipedia:Sandbox (23:45, 20 May 2022)
Hi , i'm new to wikipedia , what should i do to create my new page about movies ? --ItsHoussam16 (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi ItsHoussam16 and welcome to Wikipedia! Creating a new article is one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia—if you're interested in movies then I'd recommend that you make some smaller edits to existing articles. A good thing to do is to add a summary of a review in the "Reception" section of an article: if the section is shorter than five or six paragraphs, there's probably room for more review summaries. An example of an excellent "Reception" section is Eighth Grade (film) (so you'd want to pick a different film and model your writing on Eighth Grade). Some (generally) good and bad sources are listed at WP:RSP; generally, we'd be looking at reviews in professional, well-respected national or international publications.If you are determined to create an article on a particular movie that's been released nationally in cinemas, you'd need to look at WP:NFO and be 100% sure you have at least 2 (I'd recommend 4+ for safety) reviews of the film in highly respected sources. — Bilorv (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Question from Biginatventureafrica (14:13, 22 May 2022)
what is Biginat venture Africa --Biginatventureafrica (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Biginatventureafrica: I'm not sure what that is. Wikipedia is not a question-and-answer site, so all of our discussions are about how to improve the encyclopedia. — Bilorv (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Original Research as justification for rejecting drafs
I already answered your justification in my Talk page, i understand now why you use Original Research to remove drafts from the due process in Wikipedia while a draft is submitted for evaluation. I think another editor should review it, including your justifications. After visiting your page I understood it; you have a suspected bias for left-wing and liberal stances;
"Some of their contributions focus on people or ideas which are underrepresented on Wikipedia, such as women, people of colour, transgender people, and cultures other than those of Western Europe and North America. As a result, they take an interest in WikiProject Women in Red and WikiProject Black Lives Matter."
You also said in your justification that the draft uses the concept of "Racial superiority", which is a lie. The concept of "race" is controversial scientifically and that concept ("Racial superiotity") wasn't used in the draft; it can be fact-checked by anyone. You used original research to disagree with the sources used in the article, saying that:
"(...) That factors such as wealth, university attendance, IQ and Oscar wins are measures of intelligence or demonstrate racial superiority rather than differences of opportunity".
So without any scientific backing, you brought up the concept of 'opportunity', and this is your personal opinion. After that you cited "Scientific racism", well, besides lying about the content of the article you also make absurd accusations as means of reinforcing your stance, this is intellectual dishonesty, the draft says about Ashkenazi Jewish higher average IQ with plenty of scientific data supporting it, the concept of 'race' is not cited at all. Every line uses references, you used hostile accusations and original research to disagree with the sources (!). Using the concept of race the way you used (originally) can be interpreted as a form of racism, specially after you falsely accuse the draft of using the concept of "Racial superiority". At least in my country such accusations can be punished by law Sawyersx (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Sawyersx, and thanks for the reply. Your misconception of original research is a common one: it applies not to editors' comments on behind-the-scenes pages, but to articles themselves. It is original research, for instance, to use a source that states the wealth of Jewish people in an article on Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence, when the source does not make the (rather fanciful) connection that wealth is related to intelligence. It is not, however, original research to say as an editor that an article has subtext of false racial superiority claims. Moreover, if you want to call our inclusion and exclusion criteria for what an encyclopedia is "censorship"—which you mention on my talk page—then you are free to, but do not expect to be taken seriously.Your claim that my action is outside of due process needs expansion: I reviewed the draft in full through the AfC process, as an AfC reviewer.A few closing points: I am not a liberal; legal threats can see you blocked from Wikipedia; and accusations of racist behaviour are often taken badly by other members of the community (I don't really care—if someone thinks my actions are racist then I'm interested in hearing why). — Bilorv (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Fun challenges!
Bouncy castle of fun | |
I really enjoyed reading the challenges and comparing my contributions to them! I hope this bouncy castle entertains you just as the challenges entertained me. Astrophobe (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
|