@Cukie Gherkin: yep, definitely! I'm happy to give advice, review for GA or (when I have the time) to help rewrite/improve articles. Are there any particular episodes you have in mind? — Bilorv (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukie Gherkin: it would be a bigger project, but I wonder if seasons 2 or 3 would be better good topics to try for, as their higher acclaim means there are likely more sources available about them. High-concept or unusual episodes like AAD&D are better targets for individual GAs, as they're more likely to get coverage. The ones I've tried so far are things like "Remedial Chaos Theory" and "Abed's Uncontrollable Christmas", in both categories. — Bilorv (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MaskedSinger: my question would be, why mention this podcast and not others? I gather that in 2020 the channel created about 45 hours of original programming per week, and this isn't the only podcast they have. I don't have verifiability issues with these sources but there could be due weight issues. What makes this more important than other programming? Usually the answer to this would be something like "it's been reviewed by these professional critics". — Bilorv (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bilorv, thanks for getting back to me. You ask some great questions! To be honest, I listened to this one and so thought I'd add it. But some of the others should also be added. After I add this, would it be ok for me to add some of the others? Should I run them by you first before I do so? MaskedSinger (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be intrested in co-nominating a GA with me? I've been working on getting a few different articles to GA level and I was wondering if you would be intrested in working on any of them with me, the ones I've worked are:
A New World (The Flash) - what this need is an improved critical reception section and a few other edits.
I have been able to figure out most of the basics but what images am I allowed to add to a page. Like how should I know if it's copyrighted or not and what would happen if I were to accidentally add a copyrighted image. Thank you. --Cyanxbl (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyanxbl: thanks for the question! By default, all images are automatically copyrighted by the creator or photographer. (The same is true with writers and text: I own the copyright to this answer to your question, but by publishing it on Wikipedia under the terms and conditions of the website I'm choosing to release it under a particular Creative Commons license.)You should only upload a new image to Wikimedia Commons if: (a) you are the creator and willing to release it under a free license; (b) the creator has explicitly made reference to freely licensing the image under a compatible copyright. Except where people have broken the rules (which is dealt with through deletion discussions), all images on Wikimedia Commons will be an appropriate copyright to use within Wikipedia articles. Conversely, non-free images are only allowed within Wikipedia articles under narrow conditions. Until you gain more experience, it might be worth only using images that you find already uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. — Bilorv (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thumbelina25: if you're talking about Gorai Phakhri, you moved it to mainspace yourself and it immediately became live to readers. Search engines will start listing the page at different times depending (partly) on their web crawling algorithms.I notice that the article contains some credible claims to notability, such as film festival awards, but it is possible it will be nominated for deletion unless you add additional sources. Good sources would be reviews in respected (inter)national publications by professional critics. Interviews with the writers, cast or crew would also be useful in improving the article.I also noticed that you did not follow the rules of Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons when uploading a non-free film poster. Wikipedia is part of the free, open-source movement and only uses non-free images under specific conditions that have to be demonstrated. When uploading files in future please read the instructions carefully and don't declare something as your own work if you were not the original artist or photographer. — Bilorv (talk) 09:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adefila Oluwatimileyin Ayomide: thanks for the question and welcome to Wikipedia! Creating a new 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 the necessary 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) 14:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piero Mathew: welcome to Wikipedia! I do not understand the question you have asked, so could you explain it another way? You might want to include a link to the page you are talking about. — Bilorv (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have developed some solutions (use-cases) using Nano [1] also called XNO and I have written an article ( https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.06649 ) which was moderated and accepted on arXiv. I edited the Nano Wiki page and added the solutions I developed under a heading "Use cases". I got a mail that self-citations is a spam. I am new to Wiki. What should I do? --Sujanavan (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sujanavan: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! While volunteers will often contribute knowledge from their specialist areas, as an encyclopedia we do not publish original thought and you should typically not cite yourself as a reference to avoid a conflict of interest. Although it hosts a lot of correct and useful material, arXiv is not a reliable source because it does not require peer review before publication. Let me know if you have any more questions! — Bilorv (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have another peer reviewed article ( https://doi.org/10.12694/scpe.v25i2.2459 ) published in a reputed journal which was also a part of the earlier edit. In this case can you kindly guide me further. Sujanavan (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have a question. It has been almost 3 month since I've translated an article. I don't believe anyone got a chance to look at it. Someone already tried editing it. I've reverted changes to the content of the original article.
Am I doing it correctly? I wonder if it even got into approval queue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GlobeWeaver/Alexander_(mixed_media_artist)
@GlobeWeaver: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Your draft was never submitted but I'd recommend some changes before submission. The English Wikipedia has a higher standard of notability than some other Wikipedias, so translating an article is a good task but it still requires independently assessing whether it's an appropriate topic for us.At the moment your draft does not have enough reliable sources. It says "not much is known about the sculptor", so why is it an appropriate topic for a general-purpose encyclopedia? There are some answers you might give like "this work of his was widely acclaimed by professional critics", "he won this award", "he achieved his record", "art critics have said a lot about his oeuvre". Each of these needs reliable sources so a reader can check the information is not fabricated. And if such sources don't exist then you might be out of luck, which happens—I've created about 150 articles but I still find that some topics I want to write about just aren't notable and I have to abandon them during the initial research phase. — Bilorv (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Translating the original article was the initial starting point, but there is definitely more to add to it in the future. I didn’t want to make modification to stay close to the original content. Is it appropriate to add more before it gets reviewed as a translation? Or is it just worth starting from scratch as a new article? GlobeWeaver (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GlobeWeaver: Wikipedia is written to be rewritten, so it is appropriate to edit, rewrite, add, expand and modify however you see fit. If starting from scratch is easier you could do that instead. At present this would be declined as there are not the sources to show notability from an English Wikipedia perspective. — Bilorv (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! I appreciate any feedback on the draft I am currently writing about Douglas Miller, Philanthropist, to give it the best chance of being accepted. Very much appreciate any feedback. --All Write by Me (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi All Write by Me and thanks for the question! At the moment I think Draft:Douglas Miller (philanthropist) suffers most from neutrality issues and referencing issues. While it is appropriate on Wikipedia to report on political ideas, it is not appropriate to state them in Wikipedia's voice, such as: "Recognizing that the best way to positively affect racial and gender equity for future generations was to begin from inside the halls of power". A Wikipedia article should not be a hagiography but a neutral description of what somebody says about themselves or what other people say about them (and making the distinction in prose is key): c.f. "Miller has always felt a strong pull to help others"; "Miller’s reflections on the inspiration and goals of his venture philanthropy journey can be read in this article".On referencing, it is important that a read can check that each fact in an article is true by consulting the references, but while the draft has many links, it does not appear to have so many citations that show where each claim comes from. References are also needed to establish that a topic is within Wikipedia's scope—the jargon for this is that a topic should be notable—as the vast majority of individuals are not.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, ensuring verifiability. 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) 18:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recently I have been editing some very long pages. I often only have time to do one section per editing session, so I'll do one section and then come back to it later in the day. This results in me making multiple edits to the same page on the same day. I'm concerned that this might be perceived as artificially inflating the number of edits I've made as per "gaming the system." How can I prevent this?
@Hopeless polyglot: it's acceptable and commonplace to make many consecutive edits to the same article within a day (even dozens), as saving your work often is good practice. Other ways of saving progress include working on a copy of the article as a userspace draft (useful if you have to leave when your work is not yet in a readable state) or backing up the wikitext offline. You shouldn't worry about which of these methods looks best to others, only which is most convenient to you. — Bilorv (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
दिन में होली व रात में दीवाली सा रहता है माहौल:-
एक दिन में दो त्योहारों की होती है अनुभूति।
रुण्डेड़ा (उदयपुर) :- उदयपुर जिले से 50 किलोमीटर दूर रुण्डेड़ा गांव में करीब 457 सालो से रंग तेरस पर्व मनाते आ रहे है। इस साल यह त्यौहार 6 अप्रैल को मनाया जाएगा।
इस दिन पूरे गांव को दुल्हन की तरह फूल मालाओं व विशेष रोशनी से सजाया जाता है। यहां करीब 11 हजार जनसंख्या की आबादी वाला वल्लभनगर उपखण्ड क्षेत्र का सबसे बड़ा गांव है।
रुण्डेड़ा गांव में होली के बाद ठीक तेरहवें दिन गांव के लक्ष्मीनारायण मन्दिर के सफेद चबूतरे पर प्रातः 4 बजे एड़ा का ढ़ोल बजने के साथ ही रंग तेरस पर्व का आगाज हो जाता है। जो ग्रामीणों को इस ऐतिहासिक पर्व की सूचना देता हे। दिन में करीब 12 बजे गांव के उत्तर दिशा में तालाब के पास स्थित जत्तीजी श्री कलदास जी महाराज की धूणी पर गांव के तीनों समाज (मेनारिया,जाट,जणवा,) के पंच तीनों समाज के ढोल,थाली ओर मादल के साथ पहुंचते हे। वहा पर पूजा अर्चना कर जत्तिजी का ध्यान कर उन्हें कार्यक्रम में हिस्सा लेने के लिए आमन्त्रित करते है। जत्तीजी को आमन्त्रित करने के बाद ग्रामीण वहा से रवाना होते है वे मार्ग में डेमन बावजी को भी आमंत्रित करते है जहां से वे गांव के बड़े मंदिर पहुंचते हे, यहां भांग लेने की रस्म पूरी कर जत्तीजी महाराज की अमानत माला,चिमटा व लकड़ी की गोड़ी लेकर गेर नृत्य शुरू किया जाता है। कुछ देर नृत्य करने के बाद ग्रामीण यहां से तलहटी मंदिर ,निंबडिया बावजी,जूना मंदिर गैर खलते हुवे लक्ष्मीनारायण मंदिर पहुचते है जहां पर भारी भीड़ व रंगों की बौछार के साथ जबरी गैर होती है। गैर के साथ ही युवाओं की टोलियां ग्रामीणों को उठाकर मंदिर के पीछे की तरफ बनाये कीचड़ के गड्ढे में ले जाकर डालते है। कीचड़ के गड्ढे में सभी पुरुष वर्ग को लोटपोट किया जाता है इसके बाद सभी गैर खेलते हुवे महादेव मंदिर जणवा मंदिर होते हुए वापिस बड़ा मंदिर पहुंचते हे। जहां पर दिन का कार्यक्रम समाप्त होता है।
"रंग तेरस: रुण्डेड़ा का सांस्कृतिक महोत्सव और सामाजिक एकता का प्रतीक":-
रंग तेरस पर्व न केवल एक उत्सव है बल्कि यह स्थानीय लोगो का गर्व है जो उनकी इस ऐतिहासिक परम्परा को जिवंत रूप प्रदान करता है। इस पर्व के माध्यम से लोग अपने ऐतिहासिक, सांस्कृतिक और सामाजिक सम्बन्धो को मजबूत करते है जो आज के समाज --Rajkumar menaria Chhapanya (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am reaching out to you because of your previous participation in one of the discussions regarding the reliability and neutrality of HuffPost/Pink News/ProPublica as sources used on Wikipedia.
Currently, there is an ongoing issue with the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Joseph Edelman Wikipedia article. The section appears to be biased and lacks a balanced representation of the foundation's activities, as it primarily focuses on a single controversial donation while neglecting to mention the organization's numerous other significant contributions to various causes.
I am trying to add appropriate citations to the article on Douglas Miller, Philanthropist. There is a significant article written about him in 2023 by Pioneers Post, a respected online-only social enterprise magazine, but it's behind a paywall. Can I cite that article, or what to do in cases such as that? Again, help is very much appreciated! --All Write by Me (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Bilorv. I just wanted to check if added a topic to a "talk" page appropriately. It's currently at the bottom here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gender_dysphoria
I wasn't confident enough in my read to just edit the article itself, so I figured it'd be best to ask there about it. Hopefully I did this correctly, I would have asked first but I only just saw the "mentor" feature! Let me know when you're able, thanks. --VoeVoeVoe (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi VoeVoeVoe and welcome to Wikipedia! In general volunteers need to be bold and assume, "if I don't fix it then nobody will". The idea is that if someone reverts (undoes) your edit, either their edit summary teaches you something new or you take the disagreeement to the talk page for discussion. In this specific case—a contentious topic that receives much disruption by newcomers here to push extremist views—taking a more cautious approach is good.I would recommend finding some less contentious topic areas as you begin editing, to establish reputation in the community as someone here to write an encyclopedia. Your first edit's focus on interpreting reliable sources is a strong start though. Some potentially good tasks for newcomers are available at your homepage, but feel free to ask for advice if you have specific topics or articles in mind.By the way, to create a link to the discussion you added, the code [[Talk:Gender dysphoria#Issue With DSM-5 Prevalence Estimate|this talk page discussion]] produces: this talk page discussion.Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note about article I edited
Hello,
I have just noticed you removed a portion of my edit to the IOPC page, and I wanted to apologise in case any of my edit didn't quite reach Wikipedia's standards. It's my first real contribution to a page, so I'm still learning.
@Jollyfacedgentleman: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! It's a funny coincidence that you made that edit today, because it was completely independent from me creating To Catch a Copper, which has been in my to-do list for a couple of months. I know that you added a reliable source but on Wikipedia we're really strict about every single fact being verifiable to a clearly cited source, which comes from much experience of vandals tweaking a number here or a word there. The edit was a good start but the biggest deal is the quote from the IOPC that isn't in the Guardian article. In general we don't quote press releases, even as a "right of reply" thing: we just summarise what secondary sources like The Guardian have selected as the most important facts. My edit was just there to build on yours but is by no means the finished product, and I'm sure the section can be improved significantly. — Bilorv (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nafisa06: I cannot say for certain but I believe your account meets the criteria for autoconfirmed and this right will be granted automatically when you attempt to do something restricted to autoconfirmed accounts (such as creating a page in mainspace or editing a semi-protected page).Even though you may have the technical ability to create a new article in mainspace, I would strongly advise you to submit any drafts through the Articles for Creation process. In mainspace, pages can be deleted immediately or after discussion. By submitting an Articles for Creation draft, it can only be declined/rejected but the text will remain available for you to work on.It is important that a reader can check that every single fact in an article is true by consulting the references, and it should be obvious which reference they should check for each fact (such as by using inline citations). References are also needed to establish that a topic is within Wikipedia's scope—the jargon for this is that a topic should be notable—as the majority of topics people create drafts about are not.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, ensuring verifiability. 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) 10:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in the March 2024 backlog drive. Your contribution (3.5 points total) helped reduce the backlog by more than 250 articles! Here's a token of our appreciation. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simon Williams (chess player)
Hi,
Just a courtesy note to say that I reverted your recent edit to the article for Simon Williams (chess player). This is as per a couple of threads on the talk page for that article.
Similar material has been added to the article on a small number of occasions, but my feeling is that WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE applies and that only material relevant to the subject's chess career should be included in the article.
I've previously tried to start a discussion on the Simon Williams talk page regarding which part of the BLP guidelines would allow the material to be included. Unfortunately only a rather unreasonable IP user seemed prepared to engage with that, so I'm still under the impression that WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE is the relevant guideline here.
However, in the last hour or so I've raised the issue at WP:BLPN in the hope of getting a broader range of opinion and hopefully a categorical decision on what ought to be included.
I should probably add I have no connection to Williams and my interest is simply in relation to how the BLP guidelines apply in this case. It may very well be that my interpretation is incorrect, but in the short term I thought it best to remove the material until further guidance is received.
We may disagree on the central issue here, but hopefully this note makes clear that I have been acting in good faith. Raising the matter at WP:BLPN seemed like the best thing to do under the circumstances. Axad12 (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you so much for being here, i was contacted by people claiming to be Wikipedia representatives who would have my company on the Wikipedia site and they asked huge amounts of money even having a sample done which was impressive, but when i contacted Wikipedia they told me it was a scam.
if you like i can show you the draft they did --Halaseh-AU (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Halaseh-AU: thanks for the message! Yes, please let me know the draft as it may be useful in our attempts to understand and prevent scams relating to Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kia Lewis and welcome to Wikipedia! A new article is definitely be a target to aspire to, but creating a Wikipedia article is very difficult as 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) 17:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am having a few issues again. I wrote an article. This is my first article so i've "moved" it a couple of times. Now what happens is when i google my article, the "talk" page comes with nothing in it, instead of the article. I then have to click the article, for that article to show up.
Also, why can't I semi-protect the article I just wrote? I can't seem to find that option anywhere.
@Nafisa06: the article Asif Mahtab Utsha is in mainspace and live to readers. Per Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing, it should not currently be indexed by search engines as it has not yet been patrolled by an experienced volunteer to determine if it meets core content policies such as notability (or if it should be nominated for deletion as out of scope for Wikipedia).The vast majority of Wikipedia pages should be editable to anybody as a founding principle. Admins have the technical power to semi-protect articles only when this is necessary to prevent disruption, such as frequent vandalism. Requests can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. — Bilorv (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
Thanks for your vote of confidence on my ability to do a GA review :) I thought I had made a huge mistake in taking on a GA review before you and others reassured me. SyntaxZombie (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message, SyntaxZombie! I'm glad the review was completed and the article was promoted. There can be a steep learning curve to Wikipedia but that's no excuse for the hostility you were met with. — Bilorv (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My story title is about a rejected child who letter because everyone favorite
Once upon a time, in a small village, there lived a girl named Lily. Abandoned as a baby, she grew up in an orphanage, feeling rejected and alone. But despite her difficult beginnings, Lily's kind heart and warm smile endeared her to everyone she met.
As she grew older, Lily's compassion and generosity touched the hearts of the villagers. She volunteered at the local shelter, helped the elderly, and befriended stray animals. Her acts of kindness soon made her a beloved figure in the community.
People marveled at Lily's resilience and admired her unwavering optimism. She radiated joy wherever she went, bringing light into the lives of those around her. And though she had once been abandoned and rejected, Lily had become everyone's favorite, a testament to the power of love and kindness to heal even the deepest wounds. --Chigbo ifeanyi (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I am a Speech-Language Pathologist with a long research and practice history in childhood language development. I conducted 15 years of clinical research on gestalt language development and my book Natural Language Acquisition on the Autism Spectrum: the Journey from Echolalia to Self-Generated Grammar (2012) has now spawned a world-wide movement. I would love to help bring readers up-to-date about autistic language development. Thank you! --MargeryBlanc (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MargeryBlanc and welcome to Wikipedia! This is a fascinating subject area and I'm sure your knowledge and experience can be very valuable in our mission to make information freely accessible.Subject experts sometimes face specific challenges when editing Wikipedia: as a tertiary source and a website that attracts some very sophisticated hoaxes, a reader needs to be able to check that each claim is true. This doesn't prevent us from using paywalled or offline sources, so long as someone in theory could check it's true. Experts are sometimes unhappy when challenged by non-experts, but sources are needed for every fact you add.Citing your own writing is a somewhat contentious practice; it will help your reputation and collaboration with other volunteers if you cite a wide range of scholars from the field. As creating a new article requires familiarity with a number of Wikipedia-specific skills, it is best to start off instead by trying to make small improvements to existing articles in your field of knowledge, such as by adding a journal/book reference with a paragraph summarising it. Rather than worry about perfection in terms of formatting, citation style or compliance with the many arcane policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, be bold as somebody else can build upon your contributions or give constructive feedback if they need to be reverted altogether. — Bilorv (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: it's a good question! First of all the bar of inclusion is probably somewhere closer to "is this a reliable source?" than "is this a notable award/publication?" We want to show due weight and exclude awards that just count internet votes without scrutiny or that cost the awardee a large amount of money. If the award news has been republished (e.g. Variety lists the winners) that's an excellent sign that inclusion is warranted. Despite having worked on a few of these I'm not 100% confident on where the boundary lies: if there's been coverage of the award or publication or film festival in general then that may be sufficient. You might ask WikiProject TV/Film if there's specific edge cases you can't decide on through your own research. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the table was already mostly sourced so hopefully I'll be able to nominate it soon for the cup. Sorry that you werent able to pass this round. Honestly I did't think I would have at the begining of the year. Questions?fourOlifanofmrtennant (she/her)23:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: I'm glad there was enough competition to eliminate me! I did think this would be the year to break my streak of being eliminated in Round 2, but I'm happy with the amount of content that I submitted. — Bilorv (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Igari Groups: in one sense, (almost) anything written on Wikipedia is publicly viewable as this is a wiki written by its readers. However, the main article namespace is reserved for encyclopedia content, whereas this comment is in a "User talk" namespace, reserved for behind-the-scenes discussion.Creating a new 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 best to use Wikipedia:Articles for creation when you write your first article. You do not have the editing rights to create a new page in the main article namespace directly at the moment.Newcomers should start with tasks that help them develop the necessary 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) 18:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Syafinaz122: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I don't quite understand your question—are you asking if a new article on YGQ Entertainment can be created? If so, take a look at Wikipedia:Notability for our general principles on what topics we do and do not host articles on. — Bilorv (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Submariner Service.
Spent time in Submarines whilst working for BAE Systems. Do I qualify for a SUBMARINERS BADGE. ?? --NotShona? (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just to get it straight; in a case of "citation needed" and there is no valid resource material, can that section be deleted off the article and published. Igari Groups (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello my mentor. I am a member of the royal house of Romanow-Holstein-Gottorp. I know this sounds impossible but I am, Id there for like to create a wikipedia page about myself. I am relatively young [ 16 ] and we don't live in a castle but we do have a nice live. Nobody from my family has an Article writen about them and i would like to change that. Could you please explain to me how i can create one in simple steps? That would be great!
@Daniel von Romanow-Holstein-Gottorp: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! As we strive to maintain a neutral point of view, it is important that volunteers do not write about topics they are personally or financially invested in. The vast majority of individuals do not meet Wikipedia's deliberately limited scope, the jargon term being "notability", and creating a Wikipedia article is a poor choice for a new editor as it requires substantial Wikipedia-specific skills and knowledge around notability, verifiability, writing style and formatting wikitext. See Wikipedia:Autobiography for more. I would recommend instead you work on tasks recommended on your homepage and improve existing articles within your field of interest (which could be Russian history or modern royal families). — Bilorv (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is my wikipedia page that I have been editing for sometime now, its ready to be published. However, it has been refused. Could you please provide me with some advises to improve my page so that it gets approved?
I am a staff member working in the Digital team at AMU TV.
I saw @Theroadingislong feedback and removed all the spam links within the body of the page. Kindly let me know what else I could do to improve my page and have it accepted.
@Akbarirazia: I've left a boilerplate template about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest on your talk page. It is your job to read and comply with these rules. Wikipedia is successful and trusted because it is written by volunteers independent from the subject, not paid staff writing undisclosed adverts. If you have found Wikipedia useful in your own life then I would encourage you to contribute on subjects you are knowledgeable about but that are not directly related to your employer or yourself. — Bilorv (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question from JohnAdams1800--How do I delete Draft:Graduate unemployment in China?
Hello Mentor.I am new to Wikipedia editing and would like your help in understanding a few issues. I have recently made an edit on "Religious Discrimination in Pakistan" and (a) added some new information & (b) updated the previous information with better authentic citations. But later my edits were reverted and there is no explanation of any sorts. I have no reason to believe that there was any problem with that content but since I am new to Wikipedia, there is always a chance that I did something wrong in my ignorance. If you don't mind it, can you check it and help me understand the problem with my edit (if any) so that I can improve it in the future.
Thanks
Regards.
PS - I have multiple more authentic citations if the problem is the number of citations, Please let me know if that is the case --EditorOnJob (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EditorOnJob and welcome to Wikipedia!On your edit to Religious discrimination in Pakistan, Jkudlick was wrong to revert your edit without an edit summary. My immediate thought when I look at your edit is that it goes against MOS:QUOTE, which indicates that wherever possible we should summarise information in our own words rather than quoting it. This keeps articles short and to the point and allows us to write with a neutral point of view.On your edit to Non-cooperation movement (1919–1922), this was (wrongly) reverted automatically, but I think it violates the neutral point of view policy. Language like the following would be more suited to an essay than a Wikipedia article: That such a view should prevail is quite understandable ... But any one who cares to go behind September 1920 and examine the situation ... It is easy enough to understand and justify the Hindu caution. On Wikipedia, articles present facts without emotion. We can say "there is a misconception that X" if and only if we have a reliable source that verifies exactly that claim (it says "many people believe X" and "X is wrong"). But we don't say that views are "understandable", "justified", dispelled if you "examine the situation" etc. — Bilorv (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying.
On my edit to Religious discrimination in Pakistan, so instead of quoting, I should summarize the content as much as possible. Now I could see my mistakes. Thanks for informing me about this. This would surely help in the future.
On the edit of Non-cooperation movement (1919–1922), my idea was to present the context of the meetings which led to the beginning of the movement instead of the vagueness that is currently present in the article. I put that in the block quotation because it represented the emotive opinions and so I believed would be fair to MOS:QUOTEPOV. It might be possible that for a third party to see it as a violation of the neutral point of view. Thus if it is possible, I would like to request you to help me in understanding this part better.
@EditorOnJob: thanks for engaging in the feedback. On the latter, the quotes you used are extremely long and I cannot think of an instance where I would ever include a quote of that length in my own writing. Even when I summarise purely opinionated material (e.g. here), I can rewrite the arguments in sufficiently different wording and use only snippets of phrases that would not be neutral point of view to say in Wikipedia's voice. As I'm not a subject matter expert, I don't feel qualified to comment on whether the previous version accurately covers the origin of the movement, or whether that article's status quo is high-quality or low-quality. — Bilorv (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused by your revert of "adult entertainment" to "pornography". You say that "adult entertainment" is a euphemism, but you may have missed that the link is to sex industry. Pornography is an overly broad term. Aylo is part of the sex industry.
@Counterfeit Purses: thanks for the question. I was aware of where the link went. If we mean sex industry then we should say sex industry, per WP:EASTER, but the converse of what you say is true: sex industry is overly broad and pornography is a subset. The point is that Aylo owns porn websites, not brothels. The reader should have that information by the end of the first sentence (not that the first sentence is currently written well). The page is little-watched and an edit surviving for a few months isn't a sign of very much. — Bilorv (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I re-went through the feedback delete the spam links, added more references to support the body. Could you please revise my article and provide me with a feedback before I do a re-submission.
@Akbarirazia: the content still reads to me like an advert, like the first reviewer pointed out. It talks about "provid[ing] informative and entertaining content", being "a significant source of independent news and entertainment" and having "been recognized for its efforts in promoting press freedom". Wikipedia articles are based on attributed facts like "Organization X gave Amu Television an award for reason Y" or "Journalist X said the company was important for reason Y", but not on vague promotional claims.For the draft to stand any chance of acceptance it needs to be really clear what publications have talked about the subject in-depth and with an independent lens (whether covering it positively or negatively). What is the reach of the channel? What is its impact on Afghan or U.S. society (not in the company's views, but an independent expert's)? External links would be better used as references. — Bilorv (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Amelia Khouri: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! What you have created at the moment is a draft, but there are several reasons it would not be appropriate as an article. First of all, Wikipedia's success lies in its independence and volunteer work: if you are "notable" (meet Wikipedia's deliberately limited scope for inclusion) then the idea is that somebody else will create an article on you. Second of all, Wikipedia has a "neutral point of view" policy that prevents promotional phrases like: "She gained recognition for her comprehensive and approachable teaching methods"; "she shares her passion for art and creativity"; "This course further showcases her ability". Third of all, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources independent of the subject, like reviews by professional art critics.The draft might make a good advert or "about me" page on your website, but this is on the long list of what Wikipedia is not about. — Bilorv (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
okay then please delete it..(i didn't find anywhere to delete) So basically, I can't create my own wikipedia page somebody else needs to write it. Amelia Khouri (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the corporate comms manager for our company and have been asked whether we can create an entry for the company. I understand this is a conflict of interest situation, so I know about disclosing hte fact with {{connected contributor}}. Do you have any additional gudiance? Thank you, Adam --AdamAtAleph (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Finngall, thanks for the pointer - it's highly informative, and I am very aware that this will be a lengthly process, however I am confident that the contribution will be worthy of Wikipedia's standards. AdamAtAleph (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AdamAtAleph: I appreciate that you have taken the time to research the situation and discovered the {{connected contributor}} template. This is much better than most people in your position! However, I have to be honest and recommend the page Finngall has linked (one I've not read before). This is the boilerplate text I've been using when any newcomer asks about creating a page as their first action on 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, ensuring verifiability. 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.
It is even less likely that a newcomer will be successful in doing all of this within the scope of a company article, which is heavily scrutinised by volunteers with lots of experience of editors with conflicts of interest and the ways that their motivations contradict what Wikipedia is.In particular it would be a really bad idea to promise anyone at your company: (a) that any amount of hard work will guarantee that an article will be created (as the company may simple not be notable); (b) that any resultant article is guaranteed to be kept (as articles can be deleted after community discussion); (c) that any resultant article will mention or omit any particular piece of information (as anyone can edit the article and negative content is not censored).On the other hand I'm sure you have valuable expertise in areas you are not professionally involved in, and you'd be very welcome to create a personal account (under WP:SOCKLEGIT) to improve articles in those fields. — Bilorv (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bilorv,
I have started in the sandbox an article, perhaps you can take a look and see whether this article would make it into the live version of wikipedia. I have input several media coverage pieces re notability, however I am struggling with some formatting (the infobox for example).
Hi @AdamAtAleph: and thanks for the message! I have made some rough and ready formatting changes, and skimmed the sources. It seems to me that there may be sources that contribute towards notability, such as the Wall Street Journal, New Age and Reuters, though I am uncertain whether there is a depth of coverage or if these are just routine announcements or press releases with little journalistic oversight (this isn't my speciality).It's not clear to me (on the basis of this Reuters piece) whether IMS is the same company as Aleph or not. If it isn't, the references you have used relating to Taratuta or IMS may not contribute towards the notability of Aleph, though sources that don't establish notability can still be useful in writing a comprehensive article.I have added an Articles for Creation banner at the top that has a submit button once/if you feel the draft has reached the best that you can do, where another volunteer will assess whether it meets notability and other core standards. As there is no shortage of paid editors writing drafts and a grim shortage of volunteers, the wait can be anything from an hour to 4 months, with no guarantee of which as volunteers review articles that they have time to and feel equipped in their knowledge to. — Bilorv (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Prince GA
Hi Bilorv, @Averageuntitleduser is doing the GA Review for The Prince (play) and brought up a question about the prominence of one of the review sites (TheReviewsHub) you used way back in December 2022, when "The Prince" was a section in the Abigail Thorn article. I can see that you did some analysis on the reliability of the reviews you cited and I'm hoping you might lend your opinion on TheReviewsHub.
If you can't get to it in the next few days or so, it's not a problem. I'll make some easy-to-revert edits to get the article to GA and you can get back around to it if you so choose.
Howdy! I was wondering if you could point me in the direction of what to do to update the page of someone who is dead? The page in question is Timothy Kraft who died around 4 months ago. I see WP:BDP, which seems to suggest a 6 month window, but I'm not quite sure what that means in practice. --GrapesRock (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GrapesRock: thanks for the question! BDP is quite a technical policy but it's not about preventing updates to a page. It's about when WP:BLP applies, essentially a policy about our responsibility and additional care to get claims about living people right. The key is, as with any claim in a Wikipedia article, verifiability. I see you've added an obituary—the more news reports and obits we have, the better. But with the obituary you have you can carry out any other updates that are needed: a death date in the opening sentence; changing "is" to "was"; rewriting the sentence "As of 2008, Kraft is retired..."In theory if you have a connection to Kraft you should disclose it, but I don't think anyone will object to uncontroversial updates like including his death. My condolences if Kraft was somebody you knew. — Bilorv (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Favoursax: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! With neutral point of view as a core policy, Wikipedia is primarily written by volunteers independent of the subjects they write about. If you must edit about topics relating to yourself, you will need to disclose that conflict of interest. However, the vast majority of individuals who try to add themselves into Wikipedia find that there is not the presence of secondary sources that Wikipedia is based on (e.g. books about them, independent news coverage) to justify this, or that they are not "notable" (within the deliberately narrow scope of the encyclopedia). Let me know if you have follow-up questions! — Bilorv (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How I can publish an article on Wikipedia
I have founded a new maths formula and it is invented by me only
I want others to know about my formula by publishing an article on Wikipedia
How can I do this ? --Udyan Kukreti 03 (talk) 10:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Udyan Kukreti 03: Wikipedia's deliberately limited scope does not permit original research. You must get mainstream acceptance about your discovery among the mathematical community (such as through a peer reviewed publication in a respected journal) if it is to be included in Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I would like to start editing but cannot find the edit button at the top right of my page. I only have "Edit source". Thanks for the help! Cwilliamhu (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwilliamhu: if you are looking to use the visual editor, you can enable this in your preferences (see the link). "Edit source" allows you to see the wikitext of the page, which allows greater control over various template use and formatting aspects, and can be quicker to edit with once you have learned how to use it. Let me know if this doesn't answer the question! — Bilorv (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bilorv,
my name is Elias and I just started editing. When creating my account, I was prompted to select some languages that I read and write in, but now I can't seem to find an option to filter for languages in the suggested topics. My mother tongue is German, and while I think my English is alright, my grammar isn't really up to par, and I would prefer editing more German articles.
Is there an option to filter for languages? Or do I just have to find faulty German articles by myself?
Thanks in advance, all the best,
Elias --EliasBelbo (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EliasBelbo: hello and welcome! Each Wikipedia language version has its own community, own practices and own content, and you can tell the version by the language code in the URL ("en" for English and "de" for Deutsch). Where articles exist in multiple languages, a dropdown box like "23 languages" should appear at the top of the page. The German Wikipedia homepage can be found here and I believe there is a help desk for newcomers at de:Wikipedia:Fragen von Neulingen.If you stick around the English Wikipedia, you might want to look at Category:Articles needing translation from German Wikipedia and its subcategories. These are pages that volunteers have assessed as having much more developed German versions. It is still translators' responsibility to check any facts that they introduce into the English article, which should be verifiable to a reliable reference. Formatting and grammar can be rough and ready as non-German-speaking volunteers can improve those aspects.Let me know if you have more questions! — Bilorv (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maxs9967456: you can usually do so if you own the copyright (by taking the photo) or if the photo has been released elsewhere under a license compatible with Wikipedia (e.g. Creative Commons and NOT marked with NC or ND, but BY and SA are fine). Wikipedia:Image use policy might be a good starting point for your reading. Let me know if you can give me more details of the specific case or if I can answer any further questions this raises! — Bilorv (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maxs9967456: typically such an image wouldn't be usable in Wikipedia. The copyright holder (the streamer themselves if it's their equipment, or a photographer if it's a photoshoot) would need to agree to release it under a free license. — Bilorv (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your vote of confidence on my ability to do a GA review :) I thought I had made a huge mistake in taking on a GA review before you and others reassured me. SyntaxZombie (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
