Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14

Perhaps you could cast an eye, seems the copy-editing that was undertaken has met with disapproval, not a matter I'm going to bother wading into, but that article really does have some issues with tone. I think we should perhaps look to an article like KSI, difference being latter subject is notable so article doesn't require fluff to pad it out. Acousmana 15:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acousmana, I've undone your edit because I don't agree with your removal of references, can't see where you explained why and with reference to what source you added jokingly "identified", and your claim that a list of media appearances need a secondary source that states he guested on these shows, lumping them together like this is editorializing and WP:OR is not correct and non-standard in this topic area. Please discuss your changes when challenged, though given that you'd presumably seen the GA review and work that was going into the article, you should have really discussed before making such broad-scale changes in the first place. The right place for discussion will be Talk:Zuby (rapper) rather than my talk page, and if your particular concern is non-notability then you should go to the talk page at the first instance and if you are not convinced by any reasoning given then you can nominate for AFD. — Bilorv (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no worries, thanks for feedback, appearances lumped together without secondary cite is editorializing, arguably. re:jokingly, see diff "add primary per WP:ABOUTSELF. On "identification" point, sources refer to the tweet "P.S. I identified as a woman whilst lifting the weight. Don't be a bigot. - Face with tears of joy - " Tears of joy smiley is self-explanatory." this ^[1] is the tweet the sources cited in the article are reporting: for example. Happy editing : ) Acousmana 17:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the Reddit thread, great job on getting the great image onto the site :) DansterTheManster (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DansterTheManster! According to my Navigation popups this (specifically adding the signature) is your 100th edit—congrats on the milestone. :) — Bilorv (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've been helped by always forgetting my signature and having to re-edit it in! I will have a look at some chess pages I think. Eric Rosen needs a better page... DansterTheManster (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DansterTheManster: absolutely. I did a good article review for someone who helped massively expand the now-excellent quality Qiyu Zhou recently, on the topic of streamers' articles, if that helps as a useful model or source of inspiration. — Bilorv (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is massively helpful thanks, I shall get to work! DansterTheManster (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Congratulations! You have reached the milestone of creating or expanding 25 articles that have been featured in the Did You Know section on the Main Page. Thanks for writing articles and hooks about interesting books, TV episodes, and more. Keep 'em coming! DanCherek (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DanCherek, much appreciated. — Bilorv (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilorv :) I wondered if you'd considered running for adminship? I've been seeing you do great work around the encyclopedia and was surprised to find that no one appeared to have asked you before now! Give it a think and let me know - I'd be happy to get the ball rolling with a nomination. Sam Walton (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here I thought they were already an admin :) (t · c) buidhe 06:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on to the above -- You've always struck me as a high quality editor and I think you would be a great candidate. I would be more than happy to nominate you, if you are interested. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thank you for completing 5 reviews in the March 2021 backlog drive. Your work helped us reduce the backlog by over 52%. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, I saw your name at another FA candidate and wanted to ask if you would offer a review to my nomination here. isento (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message, Isento. Based on the previous nomination, I'm not interested in reviewing this FAC, as I don't like quality reviews where the nominator pushes back aggressively on good faith feedback. I looked at the article and there is not enough of the objectionable content raised in the previous FAC still there for me to oppose—though Genius and The Shadow League need removing, per my independent assessment of their reliabilities—but I will not be leaving a review either, and I don't support renominations made in bad faith to ignore a previous reviewer. Making a heated comment you later regret is one thing, but writing such a nasty personal comment two months later is not acceptable. I won't reply further so don't put the effort in to write something rude. You can have the last word in this conversation, or you could reflect on why multiple people have found an issue with your behaviour. Thank you for your hard work on Love for Sale (Bilal album). — Bilorv (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lol isento (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

🙄 isento (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dude why did you bother writing all this just to say no? isento (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah man. Live in the past. Stay away from my nomination. Thanks. isento (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I looked at the illusion. I will remember that you're a human being who makes mistakes. Good luck bro. isento (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized you offered a more in-depth explanation to your reasoning than that source reviewer did in the first nomination. isento (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	Women in Red Women in Europe contest
	Bilorv Thank you for your addition April 2021 WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv, Please sign up/join/participate in the Women in Red project. Register on the home page by clicking on the "participate" box. Thanks! WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv, excuse me. I see you are a member of WiR!. I was expecting to see the May newsletter on your talk page and when I didn't I mistakenly assumed you weren't a member. My follow-up today revealed my mistake. Apologies. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, WomenArtistUpdates, and I still appreciate the message and the barnstar. — Bilorv (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the above nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SNUGGUMS, the comments are helpful. I've replied to and/or fixed them all now. — Bilorv (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Zuby article has since recieved a copyedit from WP:GOCE, are you interested in reviewing it again if I were to renominate it? Thanks. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 03:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spy-cicle: thanks for the update. I think you can go through the article again, now the GOCE has been done, and see if you don't agree with any content changes or look at whether the copyedit has highlighted any missing content or room for further improvement. The first sentence now gives much more detail about Zuby's music than is proportionate given what the coverage is mainly about. The "six hip-hop albums" creates a conflict with the fact we only list three studio albums, so is there something missing, or is it worth rewriting something to make clear how this isn't a contradiction? When you think you've got as far as you can, you can nominate for GA and I think I will be able to re-review it. — Bilorv (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks I'll have a read and scan through and dig more into that music/album problem.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 02:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I have gone through and made a few adjustments and additions. In regards to the "independently released six hip hop albums" in the lead I am happy to remove that given that he is hardly noted for music albums/career. The six albums is only sourced to his website. Some albums like his debut and maybe one or two others can probably be cited to secondary but the rest can probably only be sourced to primary sources. The discography was there before I rewrote I could rewrite it and source it all 6 and others to his website but that seems somewhat promotional. What are your thoughts in dealing with this problem? I could just remove it entirely? Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 02:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spy-cicle: Hmm, since they're independently released and he wouldn't be notable for his music alone (right?), I think omitting any that aren't covered in secondary sources is the better option. But anything that is mentioned in secondary sources should be included. — Bilorv (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Apologies for this super random message. I hope you are doing well and staying safe. I was wondering if you could possibly help with my current peer review for the Veronica Clare article? I completely understand if you do not have the time or just would not like to participate in the peer review, but I wanted to reach out to you based on your experience with television articles. Apologies again for randomly reaching out for help. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, Aoba47, it's very welcome. I've made a note of this but I'll have to see if I have the time as I'm entering a busy period and have committed to a couple of other things. — Bilorv (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the response, and best of luck with everything keeping you busy. I completely understand and do not feel pressured into doing a review anytime soon. I plan on keeping the peer review up for a while, and you can always catch it whenever I put it up for a FAC (which would be even further down the line) if you are interested. Aoba47 (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would really appreciate your opinion about an userbox I created on request, recently nominated for deletion together with other similar userboxes. The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Qartagir/Userboxes/Fascist. Thanks, Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 00:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Est. 2021: please do not canvass people like this. A representative sample of Wikipedians will naturally find their way to the discussion and if you don't like the outcome then, well, tough—Wikipedia is closer to a democracy than a fascist state, so you've got to live with outcomes you don't agree with. — Bilorv (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly missed the "on request" part, since I don't share this ideology and I've never put such a userbox on my userpage. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs)`

@Est. 2021: I didn't miss any such thing and I didn't say or think that you were a fascist. — Bilorv (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		Thank you for helping out at CCI. Your help is greatly appreciated :) Keep up the great work! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MrLinkinPark333. I don't feel I've done much so far but I'm hoping to make time to help out more at CCI at least in the medium-term. — Bilorv (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Bilorv. Would you be able to drop a comment here? I have an IP who insists on removing genres from the infobox. I’ve told him where the info can be found, yet he removes it as “unsourced”. I brought it to administrative attention and got a surprising response. Maybe I’m just not explaining myself properly. Any help would be appreciated. Giacobbe ^talk 11:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@(CA)Giacobbe: I've left a comment. I would always assume an admin is in a rush or doesn't have subject knowledge if you find the decline surprising, rather than malice. RFPP gets very backlogged so they don't have all the time in the world. However, possibly an admin could reasonably find protection not to be warranted yet from the number of edits.

These genres in infoboxes are strange creatures. Perhaps you know this already but a lot of people seem to get very angry at them, and we have a couple of LTAs who target them specifically. I think I've seen one changing The 1975 genres before. (Maybe it's that any insinuation of a band being "pop" or mainstream upsets someone who thinks they're the only person in the world to have discovered them.) — Bilorv (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support, I appreciate it. I have to admit, it is somewhat disheartening putting in the work to improve articles, only to be bested by an IP, haha. Regarding the infoboxes, I hear you on that. I don’t really understand the fixation some people have with them. I’d argue that roughly 70-80% of IP edits I come across have to deal with genres. It is frustrating! Giacobbe ^talk 11:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@(CA)Giacobbe: It's frustrating, but the status quo will always get restored in the end. The way I think about it, particularly when I'm annoyed that a vandal edit remained uncontested for so long, is that even if the page looked as crap as it did before you started work on it for a day, then that's equivalent to if you had just begun work on it (or moved your draft to mainspace) a day later. You'll drive yourself mad if you think about the amount of imperfect content readers are exposed to, rather than the amount of good content. — Bilorv (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's some wise advice, thank you. I just have to have faith in the process and trust that things will correct itself. On the bright side, an admin has granted semi-protection to A Brief Inquiry into Online Relationships! I finished expanding the article several weeks ago, not sure if you've had a chance to check it out. I'm thinking of putting it up for GAN soon once the I Like It When You Sleep... singles are done. I always appreciate your reviews, if that's something you'd be willing to give some thought to reviewing (and I promise ABIIOR is much smaller than NOACF) . Giacobbe ^talk 15:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@(CA)Giacobbe: I've already committed to the limit of what I can commit to over the next few weeks, but I'll at least give the article a read when I can. A Brief Inquiry is my favourite album and I think I've listened to "Give Yourself a Try" more than double any other song. — Bilorv (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Not annoyed at you! Here to let you know I got back to your helpful comments re my draft, thanks for those. Cheeers W3005O (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for reverting my edit on Philosophy Tube! I had no idea that removing 'the' before titles was an American thing. Blade Jogger 2049 ^Talk 14:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, BladeJogger2049, happy to help. — Bilorv (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Bilorv! The article you nominated, The 1975 (2019 song), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Way to go on getting this to FA! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SNUGGUMS, and I appreciate your comments in the nomination. Only my second FA, but hopefully not my last. — Bilorv (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure :). I've gotten three myself, with hopes of achieving more someday. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Woo! Congratulations my friend, I’m very happy for you. Lots of hard work on your part! Giacobbe ^talk 13:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The date of birth has been on the page for months and can be backed up with numerous sources. I have had to deal with many users in recent days on my old account that liked to vandalise and remove everything from pages without a good reason. If the information is there, as it is, it should be added to the page like it was before rather than everything relevant being removed which would make the page bare and missing important information. — LicentiaA (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LicentiaA: thank you for the reply. Is it clear to you that you should not undo another person's change without explanation, and instead the best option is to engage in discussion? Please leave a comment at the existing talk page discussion that addresses the concerns raised—in particular, by explicitly giving a reliable source and explaining its reliability (if unclear or contested by another user already).

By the way, your signature should use an uppercase "a" in the user talk page link, as it currently directs to the wrong place. — Bilorv (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LicentiaA: I see that your old account is Srodgers1701 and that you've made some extremely rude comments like in this and this edit summary. Can you explain to me how this new account is a legitimate sockpuppet, given that multiple accounts are generally disallowed? Are you also aware of the fact that you do not own the articles you create, that all content in Wikipedia must be reliably sourced and that disputes about content must be resolved by discussion? If you fail to address these comments within 48 hours, I will start a formal sockpuppet investigation between your accounts, or raise the issue at ANI or another noticeboard. — Bilorv (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on The 1975 (2019 song). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]