User talk:Bilorv

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cultural appropriation[edit]

My further reading link clearly put it under related subtopics and the article did state genetic appropriation which indeed is related not direct. Persian Lad (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Persian Lad and thanks for the message! "Further reading" sections have to be topical, so that the majority of the work is directly about the subject. It's not like a "See also" section, which has limited leeway for related topics. "Further reading" sources are often ones that would be useful in the article, or alternate summaries of the topic (like a textbook), or the most important references in a long reference list. — Bilorv (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from Hopeless polyglot (18:47, 2 January 2024)[edit]

Dear Bilorv,

I am interested in expanding stub articles about rare or poorly-studied languages and ethnic groups, because 1) I don't see enough people doing it and 2) my educational background is linguistics, focusing on indigenous and minority languages.

However, I'm worried that adding too much detailed information about very obscure languages and groups might be a form of giving undue weight. Can you give some guidance on this?

Sincerely, Hopeless polyglot --Hopeless polyglot (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Hopeless polyglot and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad to hear about your subject knowledge in a topic that's underrepresented on Wikipedia.
"Due weight" only applies to unbalanced emphasis within an article (for instance if 90% of English language was about the differences between British and American English). Articles overall need to have references that show notability—expanding stubs (which maybe lack such sources) is a fantastic place to focus attention on.
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. In fact it's sometimes even a good idea to start with a source, say a book about Iroquois people, and use that source to expand several related articles on Iroquois languages.
One more subject-specific warning: my understanding is that lots of indigenous culture and information is passed down by oral tradition. Unfortunately we don't have the capacity to host such information here—we have to wait until it's recorded.
If you have any more questions (or come to any later), please ask! — Bilorv (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Bilorv! Thank you for reviewing Draft:Caleb Maupin. I agree (and wish) that the sourcing could be stronger. However, I think the secondary sources are sufficient to meet WP:NBASIC.

I've listed and categorized the independent secondary sources below:

  1. Cleveland Scene 2010: Substantial coverage, reliable (Cleveland Scene), secondary, independent
  2. CPUSA 2021: Substantial coverage, partly reliable (CPUSA), independent
  3. TruthOrFiction 2022: Partly substantial coverage of a Maupin-led CPIUSA event, reliable (TruthOrFiction.com), secondary, independent
  4. Newsweek 2022: Partly substantial coverage of a Maupin-led CPIUSA event, reliable (Newsweek), secondary, independent
  5. Chicago City Wire 2022: Partly substantial coverage of a Maupin-led CPIUSA event, probably reliable, secondary, independent
  6. The Nation 2013: Passing coverage, reliable (The Nation), secondary, independent
  7. The Guardian 2016: Passing coverage, reliable (The Guardian), secondary, independent
  8. Reuters 2015: Passing coverage, reliable (Reuters), secondary, independent
  9. Polygraph.info 2023: Passing coverage, partly reliable (Polygraph.info), secondary, independent

Of note: The "passing" coverage is all substantial enough to include a brief description of Maupin and a quote from Maupin, not just a trivial mention of their name.

By my count, that's 1 substantial & reliable source, 1 substantial & partly-reliable source, 3 partly-substantial & reliable sources, 3 passing & reliable sources, and 1 passing & partly-reliable source.

I'd love to have a second substantial & reliable source, but I think this already meets WP:NBASIC's guideline:

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial [only 1], then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability [see, for example, the 3 sources (Truth or Fiction, Newsweek, Chicago City Wire) discussing CPIUSA and Maupin in medium detail]; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

I am not annoyed at you, but I did like the illusion. :)

Would love to hear your thoughts! SocDoneLeft (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SocDoneLeft: thanks for the message! It's worth noting that this article has been deleted twice at AfD, most recently in 2020, so we'd expect quite a few post-2020 sources to be revisiting this. And to be fair most of the ones you list are.
The passing coverage is all trivial and cannot be added up to meet WP:NBASIC: the descriptions are as brief as possible to establish who the quoted figure is (if you had a name without description, the reader would go, "who?"). This includes TruthOrFiction. I don't understand why CPUSA would be reliable here. This leaves Cleveland Scene and Newsweek, which maybe count for something about CPIUSA.
However, the broader point is that these independent sources are not a sound basis to write a biography of Maupin. What was his role in Occupy Wall Street? What is his role at RT? Why did CPIUSA expel him and disband? We have the options to have an article largely based on social media and primary sources, or one with short, choppy sentences like "He founded the CPIUSA; its Twitter account was created in December 2021" that provide little context. Neither strikes me as sufficient for notability. — Bilorv (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bilorv: I agree with your overall point, that few in-depth or really substantive sources exist about Maupin. Nothing like a proper, full biography exists in any reliable sources; hence the choppy structure. I think this is less of a problem when the article also serves to document the Center for Political Innovation; lots of articles on small organizations are choppy as hell.
With the power of Google-fu, I have added a few more sources:
  1. Business Insider 2021: Passing coverage, reliable (Business Insider), secondary, independent
  2. The Insider 2022: Substantial coverage, reliable (The Insider (website)), secondary, independent
The Insider source is the closest to a strong secondary source. It is entirely focused on Maupin, briefly discusses Maupin's past at RT, briefly discusses his organization, and briefly discusses the sexual abuse allegations against him. I argued before that the sources were enough to eke across the WP:NBASIC criteria -- with this, I think this definitely meets notability.
Comments welcome! SocDoneLeft (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SocDoneLeft: The Insider link isn't working for me, I'm afraid. I can't see myself approving the Maupin draft on the strength of it but if you believe these two sources make a difference you can resubmit with them. — Bilorv (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your GA nomination of Joan Is Awful[edit]

The article Joan Is Awful you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Joan Is Awful for comments about the article, and Talk:Joan Is Awful/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of OlifanofmrTennant -- OlifanofmrTennant (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations, on this article passing. I saw that it had been sitting there for a while so I decided to review it for the WikiCub. I think that you could definatly nominate this for DYK, a nice hook could talk about the parody of Netflix in the episode I think there is probably something there. Anyways I wish you well I going to work on a potential GA. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant: thanks for the review! — Bilorv (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from LorentBerbatovci (14:22, 6 January 2024)[edit]

Hi Bilorv, just wanted to say hi and its nice to meet you. I will be working on 2 new articles this month and I would like your help. Thank you and have a great 2024 --LorentBerbatovci (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi LorentBerbatovci and thanks for your message! A new article can definitely be a target to aspire to, but you need to build up your skills first.
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) 14:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the reply. I've had 2 articles rejected recently and it was heartbreaking but I have gathered more experience on how to write them but this time I would really appreciate if you can overlook my whole process and guide me in the right way. I will get back to you shortly once Im ready to go again. Thank you LorentBerbatovci (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LorentBerbatovci: my advice to you, as given above, is that your next edits should not focus on creating a new article, but instead on learning how to identify and incorporate reliable sources into existing articles. You may find some such tasks (and other appropriate tasks) on your homepage.
I notice that you claim here to be professionally associated with Fjolla Beka, who you have written about, but you have not yet followed the conflict of interest guidelines that you were notified about on your talk page. This typically includes creating a userpage where you explain which subjects on Wikipedia you have a conflict of interest about. — Bilorv (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from I like lincoln town cars (03:52, 7 January 2024)[edit]

i'm wondering what this means

so basically i'd just like to know what it means when a username has been crossed out and replaced with text that says "username or ip removed". thank you! --I like lincoln town cars (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@I like lincoln town cars: there are a number of reasons a username or IP address may be removed, including if the username is grossly offensive or if the person editing did not realise they were revealing their IP address publicly. — Bilorv (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from Nelmar Hades Sayson (11:49, 11 January 2024)[edit]

Hello! I just want to know how to upload my books here in Wikipedia... Thank you. --Nelmar Hades Sayson (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nelmar Hades Sayson: are you trying to release a book you have written under a free license so that others can share the information in it? Or are you asking if Wikipedia can host an article about the book? — Bilorv (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello! good morning. About the concern of publishing, IO want to know both, because both recommendation... I consider it best... Thank you, and I hope that you will give more knowledge about the privilege endowed... Thank you again. Nelmar Hades Sayson (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nelmar Hades Sayson: per the conflict of interest guidelines, you are strongly advised not to create a Wikipedia article about yourself or a book you have written. Books would need to be previously published and covered in professional outlets before we can host an article on them.
Our sister project Wikibooks accepts book donations if you own the copyright to the book and are willing to release it under a free license. — Bilorv (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from Amoako Abbey on Saudi Arabia national football team (13:57, 12 January 2024)[edit]

I want to come and play football at Saudi Arabia division 3 leg am 22yeah am Ghanian please me to come --Amoako Abbey (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Amoako Abbey: Wikipedia accounts are for discussing improvements to Wikipedia articles. We cannot help you contact the subjects of the articles, like the Saudi Arabia national football team. — Bilorv (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from Grapheditor20 (20:52, 15 January 2024)[edit]

Hi Bilrov,

Quick question: I was trying to create a wikipedia page for a woman computer scientist as part of my interest to better represent woman led work in STEM here. I think the draft was rejected citing concerns about including mostly primary references. For secondary citations, could we include LinkedIn and other social media post mentions about awards and nominations? --Grapheditor20 (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Grapheditor20: social media posts are not typically reliable or sources that contribute to notability. The awards and nominations themselves, if sufficiently reputable and not vanity awards, can be both: the awarding organisation or some news coverage of the awards will work as sources for this.
She is widely known for her ground-breaking work is not neutral and the reference doesn't mention Ghosh that I can see.
From the references I can see that the subject exists, but not why she is notable. A doctorate and career in industry don't meet the threshold of notability. Measurable impact in the field or substantial news coverage would. See WP:NPROF and WP:NBIO. — Bilorv (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from Pedram1974 (02:04, 16 January 2024)[edit]

Hi there. Thank you for being my mentor. Not sure whether you will be able to help me with my issues as most of my articles are in Farsi language.

I was trying to add a new article but upon publishing the article I received a text warning me that my article has been flagged as Vandalism by the Abuse Filter. And the more specific reason given was: use of profanity.

This is clearly a mistake as I have used no profanity in my article. My guess is that the actress's last name may be triggering this filter. Her last name is DIV-SALAAR which in old Farsi means, Great Boss, but the word DIV can also mean monster in modern farsi. Nevertheless it's her last name and I have referenced the book from which I got this last name. Can you please help me? Do you have any suggestions for me? --Pedram1974 (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Pedram1974 and thank you for the question! As I cannot speak Farsi it is quite difficult for me to suggest the right page for you to ask this question but it appears that ویکی‌پدیا:درخواست_راهنمایی is a help desk on the right Wikipedia. You can read about edit filters on the English Wikipedia guideline page, but it is a complicated matter as the particular filter could have several different settings and each could require a different solution for the article to be published. — Bilorv (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for getting back to me. I will follow up with the link you suggested. Many thanks again Pedram1974 (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from Abelmenge on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk (14:37, 16 January 2024)[edit]

Hello, I am unable to post an aritcle about an organization I was very amazed about --Abelmenge (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Abelmenge Wikipedia is not a promotional page, we do allow the promotion of companies/business entities/businesses on our site. Please see WP:PROMOTION for more information. 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

== Question from Cathaven1212 (20:05, 18 January 2024)

What is the best way to ask for help to buy a Wendy house --Cathaven1212 (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cathaven1212: Wikipedia pages are for improving the encyclopedia articles on our website. I can't help you with your question. — Bilorv (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women in Red[edit]

Hi there, Bilorv, and welcome to women in red. With your wide experience of Wikipedia and your obvious interest in writing about women, you should be a useful contributor. When creating further biographies of women, you might find it useful to browse through our Primer. As an active mentor, you may also be able to help us by attracting new participants. If you would like others to see your interest in the project, you can sign up under "New registrations" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/New members. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women in Red January 2024[edit]

Women in Red | January 2024, Volume 10, Issue 1, Numbers 291, 293, 294, 295, 296


Online events:

Announcement

  • In 2024 Women in Red also has a one biography a week challenge as part
    of the #1day1woman initiative!

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Ipigott (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from MahjongmahjonG (12:01, 20 January 2024)[edit]

Hello,

I would like to translate a page (noted as ‘missing’) - vessel Esther Jensen - into Danish, but when I follow the steps offered by wikipedia, it doesn't appear. It keeps loading. I’m using a phone - maybe it requires a pc?

Thanks --MahjongmahjonG (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi MahjongmahjonG and thanks for the question! I know that on the English Wikipedia, the content translation tool is limited to experienced volunteers due to issues with people machine translating into languages they cannot read without human oversight (and subsequent serious errors). However, this would only be translations into English, not from English to Danish.
Perhaps the Danish Wikipedia has similar restrictions; perhaps you are right that the tool only works on PC. Since this isn't my area of expertise, maybe you would get a better answer on the Danish Wikipedia: I believe they have a newcomer-oriented help desk here. Sorry I can't be of more assistance! — Bilorv (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! MahjongmahjonG (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from IonlyPlayz2 (13:54, 23 January 2024)[edit]

Not really an edit, I was just wondering how to create a wikipedia article --IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ok i finished my wikipedia article

how do i upload it --IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@IonlyPlayz2: 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.
Your draft at Draft:S.S. Tionesta shows that the subject exists, not that it is notable. The Library of Congress—by design—hosts a large amount of obscure material on almost anything that is published in the U.S. But for a Wikipedia article, we need to see that historians have written at length about the subject, so there is enough to say for a standalone article.
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) 17:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hi IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
so im also gonna do the octorara IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from Plz HELP 00001 (16:24, 27 January 2024)[edit]

Plz save the my country --Plz HELP 00001 (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Plz HELP 00001: hello and welcome to Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia. If you have a question about Wikipedia, feel free to ask me. — Bilorv (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from Luke V. Lauretano (19:32, 1 February 2024)[edit]

Hello, How do I locate an article? --Luke V. Lauretano (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Luke V. Lauretano: welcome to Wikipedia! Can you reword your question? I don't know what "locate" means here. Maybe telling me the specific article you are looking for would help. — Bilorv (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
looking for articles on potato famine in Newfoundland 2600:1000:B112:69BD:1D3B:3F58:EA82:807B (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think 1846–1848 Newfoundland potato famine is the main article on this topic. — Bilorv (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from Lkg569 on List of entomologists (23:54, 3 February 2024)[edit]

I have never edited Wikipedia and doubt I will make a habit of it, but in the list of entomologists there should be an entry for:

Margaretta Hare Morris, Philadelphia, USA (December 3, 1797 - May 29, 1867)

Famous for her discovery that cicada larvae feasted on the roots of trees, her controversial theories about wheat flies, and her observations of water beetles transporting fish eggs from lake to lake. By 1850 she had established herself as one of the country's most notable agricultural entomologists, and along side the astronomer Maria Mitchell was one of the first two women elected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

Reference: McNeur, Catherine "Mischevious creatures, the forgotten sisters who transformed early American science". 2023, Basic Books, an imprint of Hachette Book Group --Lkg569 (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lkg569: welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for the suggestion! I've added Morris to the list and also added the book as a "Further reading" source to the article on Morris, Margaretta Morris. You are welcome to edit both the list or the article directly (particularly if I've made a mistake!), but make sure you rewrite the source's information in your own words if you do so to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues. — Bilorv (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. After reading McNeur's book I went straight to the list of entomologists instead of searching Margaretta Morris' name, obviously, and now I see there is a rather complete individual entry for her. Thank you for the guidance should I wish to make any other edits in the future. Lisa Lkg569 (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from Angryonions42 (16:08, 4 February 2024)[edit]

how do i edit an existing page --Angryonions42 (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Angryonions42: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! In most cases it is as simple as clicking the "Edit" button (which might appear in a different place depending on your device). I gather you managed to find it given this edit—please don't test on articles (where readers can see), but you can use Wikipedia:Sandbox or User:Angryonions42/sandbox or lots of other behind-the-scenes pages to see how it all works.
Let me know if you have any more questions! — Bilorv (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from Karinae Nguyen (03:16, 7 February 2024)[edit]

How do I check my IP address unblock status over Vietnamese Wikipedia? --Karinae Nguyen (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Karinae Nguyen: I believe the right page would be [1] (though I can't be confident with no knowledge of the language). However, I'm not sure your account is even registered on the Vietnamese Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Karinae Nguyen: I've just realised you asked about IP unblock status. This is harder to check as there may be a rangeblock that covers a large number of IP addresses. I am not an expert on this topic in the English Wikipedia so it's hard for me to suggest where this information would be stored.
However, if you have not been personally blocked and it is not ban evasion for you to edit, you should be able to check just by trying to edit, for instance at vi:Trợ_giúp:Chỗ_thử. You may also be able to get a clearer answer on a Vietnamese Wikipedia help desk, perhaps vi:Wikipedia:Giúp_sử_dụng_Wikipedia, though this would probably immediately answer whether you are able to edit(!). It might be helpful for me to also link that there is a process for IP block exemption, though it may vary by Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe you are correct that this account is not registered on the Vietnamese Wikipedia. Although I tried to sign up, I was blocked initially. I'm still trying to understand the reason why. Karinae Nguyen (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from HolyMichaelGeez (08:13, 10 February 2024)[edit]

Hi, I’m new to all these and really don’t know where to start

Maybe u can send me a link to open edits in the African film and cinema --HolyMichaelGeez (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HolyMichaelGeez: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! You can find some suggestions of newcomer tasks at your homepage. The ideal is to start by adding reliable sources to existing articles that are in poor shape. Every fact you add to an article needs such a source to ensure verifiability—that a reader can tell you've not just made the information up.
To film articles, it is useful to add brief quotes from professional critics in respected national publications (such as those listed on Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic), but make sure you use quote marks and say who the reviewer is. Not every film is within Wikipedia's scope ("notable") but those that have received two full-length reviews by respected critics are typically so.
This link searches for articles tagged "Africa" and "film" where an editor has raised an issue over an unsourced statement. — Bilorv (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from BadEditor92 (14:13, 11 February 2024)[edit]

How can I make articles less technical? --BadEditor92 (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BadEditor92: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Some articles can be made more readable by rephrasing for conciseness or simplicity; some can be made more accessible by minimising assumed knowledge and writing "one level down". Can you point me to a specific example? In general you will need some subject knowledge in the topic area to be able to understand what the article currently says and rewrite it to be more readable or accessible without sacrificing accuracy. — Bilorv (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An example is this article for Tagalog grammar. I don't understand it even though I'm a native speaker of Tagalog. Should I paraphrase or add less technical descriptions? BadEditor92 (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BadEditor92: I would personally be reluctant to edit articles where I felt I didn't understand the subject. I'm a native speaker of English but with my limited linguistics knowledge there are lots of English grammar articles I wouldn't touch.
It's important not to lose factual accuracy when you paraphrase or replace jargon. If you can work out what a sentence means (even after three or four times of reading it), then you might find a better way of expressing the same information.
Another factor to consider is the referencing. I notice Tagalog grammar has a lot of verifiablity issues: it's not clear what source I can look at to tell each fact is true. You might look for references that say a similar thing to the article, and that might also give you ideas as to what the meaning is and how to rewrite it. — Bilorv (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bilorv Thanks for answering. I'm sure most of the article is correct since the sentences provided as examples make sense to me. But it seems like the technical parts were written by an expert in the subject, so that might be why it's full of jargon with no explanations. I'll try to look for good sources about Tagalog grammar. BadEditor92 (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from Tall Daisy (04:55, 13 February 2024)[edit]

Hey, Bilorv, I keep getting asked to find sources for subjects that are usualy completely dead. The question that i have is if i find a source that knows more about the subject but can't be guarenteed. would it be better to add it anyway or would it be best to just leave them out? many thanks and have a slay day, Tall daisy --Tall Daisy (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tall Daisy: hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm struggling to work out what you mean without an example. In general each fact in Wikipedia needs a reliable, published source so readers can check the fact is not just made up, and identifying reliable sources is a skill that takes time to develop but some commonly discussed sources are evaluated here. If this doesn't answer your question please let me know! — Bilorv (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question from Generictrade (21:00, 22 February 2024)[edit]

The company for which I am employed has been in business for over 13 years, is highly competitive and has had many third party articles and reviews published about it. Unfortunately however, there is no Wikipedia page written about it. I would like to merely submit a very basic page that other non-affiliated users could edit. --Generictrade (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Generictrade: per the conflict of interest guidelines, you would be strongly discouraged from doing so. Be warned that information hosted on Wikipedia articles can reflect negatively on the subject, if that is the way the facts from independent sources go. Additionally, writing a new article is a very poor newcomer task as it requires familiarity with many skills such as referencing, formatting and writing in a Wikipedia-specific tone of voice that are best practised one by one on existing articles. Most subjects that newcomers try to create articles on lack the references to be notable, meaning that no amount of good writing or research can overcome a fundamental nonexistence of sources, though your question indicates this might not be the case for the subject you are thinking about.
If you insist on writing about your employer then you should make sure this is clear to every volunteer who engages with your writing, for instance, by writing a comment to this effect on your userpage. The onus is on you to familiarise yourself with the guidelines; you may also find this explanatory supplement useful. If you encounter ambiguity in the guidelines or struggle to follow a particular step, you can ask me a more specific question. — Bilorv (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forum vs pdf, or which reference to use[edit]

Hi Bilorv! I am trying to improve the Twin Prime Search page, I removed some direct links to pdfs and out of date information. I now want to remove the last pdf link in the progress section, and find a citation instead. Unfortunately the only citeable HTML website I find is this forum page. Do you have some suggestions on the best way to proceed? Put the pdf link in a cite-web citation, or cite the forum announcement? MyOrbs (talk) 09:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MyOrbs: thanks for the question! I would prefer the PDF source to the forum, but secondary sources (not from the website itself) would be better. If this was a world-breaking twin prime discovery, did it garner any news coverage? Even better, have any journalists interviewed the founder of the website or written about the website in detail? There are other websites with much more detailed lists of large primes, but Wikipedia articles should be primarily focused on how the site works, who contributes to it, why it was founded etc. — Bilorv (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bilorv thanks! I used the archived link for the pdf in a citation. This was indeed a record breaking twin prime but I did not manage to find news coverage or something similar. I am not an expert in the field so I struggled to find papers explicitly mentioning this (or other) twin prime findings. Seems a bit niche maybe. Anyway thanks again! MyOrbs (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community episodes[edit]

Hey do you have any interest in trying to get more Community episodes to GA status? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@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[reply]
Well, not looking into doing it in the VERY near future, but I think I will put "Advanced Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" at the top of my priorities. Maybe I'll springboard off that and do a GT for the season! - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
Oh, that's a good point. In that case, after AAD&D, I'll rock "Epidemiology (Community)" (my second-favorite episode, I reckon). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Josh Hammer on the first[edit]

Hey Bilorv, you removed the mention of Josh Hammer's podcast on the First There are other references to it

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/america-on-trial/id1727785259

https://www.thefirsttv.com/podcast/

You ok with these? Can it be added back to the page? MaskedSinger (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]
@MaskedSinger: I don't own the article (or any) so I can't ask you to run them by me. I would still not add this content myself but I'm not likely to revert you if it is verifiable, referenced information. — Bilorv (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok cool. thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]