User talk:Bilorv/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Bilorv. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

This archive is updated manually by Bilorv.

Archive created 14:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi i have a question i believe i recieved an article review from you and it was declined, if you could help me with what needs to be fixed that would be really great. Bilorv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennethmank13 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kennethmank13! New discussions go at the bottom of talk pages—there should be a "New section" button that'll put it in the right place automatically. On talk pages, you end comments with four tildes (~~~~) to produce a signature. I'm guessing you're talking about Draft:Tex Brown (Season 1). Have you seen the comment I wrote, beneath the two decline templates? What particular thing is confusing you? — Bilorv (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh Yes I have, So you told me 1st i believe that 1st any information should be moved from the split season to the main article and that if needed, There can be a split article created for the season, So I Added The information from The Draft Season To The main Tex Brown Article. But what was the other issue, So it can be corrected. Bilorv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennethmank13 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kennethmank13: remember to sign your comments. It looks to me like you've done everything I suggested. A page is only split into multiple pages when it's too big to contain all the information, but here the page Tex Brown is still not very large. If more information is added and it became maybe double or triple the size it is now, then a split could be considered. Thanks for your contributions! — Bilorv (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok Thank You!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennethmank13 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your concerns on Into the Unknown: Making Frozen II, the article which a nominated for Good article a few days ago. I apologize for not consulting the article with a significant contributor. To resolve the issues, would you like me to withdraw my GAN? The tasks listed in the GAN are almost done and are awaiting reviews. What do you think? Wingwatchers (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Wingwatchers: no I think you can go ahead with the GAN. I think the article is around GA standard and if a reviewer agrees then that's great. — Bilorv (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello again. I hope you are doing well. I have a quick FAC-related question. My FAC has already attracted a good deal of support (and thank you again for your support) and an image/media review. It is only missing a source review. I do not mean to come across as impatient as I am sure someone will do a source review, but I was wondering if there was anything that I could to find a source reviewer? I am just a little frustrated by the lack of progress over the past few days. Aoba47 (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: yeah, I think there've been relatively few people recently who want to do source reviews. The FAC is already listed at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Image/source check requests and short of asking someone personally "would you mind doing a source review here?", I don't think you can speed anything up. I'm pretty sure something with this much support is (almost) never closed because of a missing source review—when worst comes to worst, I've seen a co-ordinator do the review themselves and then close the nomination as successful (though that's quite a generous thing to do). — Bilorv (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response. I agree that there appear to be relatively few people who do source reviews for the FACs. I can understand why to some extent as it does take time and work to do a source review correctly. I will try to be more patient with it and let the process run its course. I should try to help out with source reviews for FAC so the responsibility does not always come down on the same editors. Have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I need to post a biography for a client. Is there a tutorial page for that type of article?

THANKS! --Clamorhouse (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Clamorhouse: please read the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. You need to disclose your conflict of interest in the ways described there. Wikipedia is neutral, so we do not post adverts or hagiographies. We only cover topics which meet our "notability" definition. If you show me the reliable independent in-depth references you have then I can give you a good estimate as to whether the topic is notable.

Your client should know that the article about them is not under their control, will reflect any negative information about them that is public, cannot be deleted if they don't like it and conversely can be deleted if the community decides that the subject is not notable. Instructions about how to properly disclose your conflict of interest and, if you still wish to, to create a draft that can be assessed by an independent volunteer are found at link in the first sentence. Hope this answers your question. — Bilorv (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I have a question regarding the house of Harry Potter characters displayed in the infobox. A week ago an IP user made an edit request at the talk page of Sirius Black, which I completed making this edit. As you would've seen that he/she made one more request pinging me there, I wanted to take some guidance from any experienced editor. Please note that I want help in knowing whether making same changes on all the characters' pages would be right or not, and not in how to do it. Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 13:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@-ink&fables: thanks for asking! In this case, it really does seem like it's an objective improvement—it is in-universe information. Some people might object to the parameter altogether, or its inclusion in some articles (like where the House is less important, as for adult characters we encounter outside of Hogwarts), but you wouldn't be changing this. I think there's no problem with going around this and doing this for up to a few dozen pages (however many it applies to), marking the edits as minor if you want. If someone starts reverting you or objects, then it needs discussion, but I'd say Be Bold applies. If you don't have the time/interest yourself, you can ask the IP to make edit requests on the protected pages and fix any unprotected pages by themselves. — Bilorv (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for a quick reply. I'll do it by myself, there are less than 20 characters who have their own wikipedia article. -ink&fables «talk» 15:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Kindly approve the page. These are well known news papers in India. Assameseboy (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Assameseboy: you resubmitted this draft with no changes since the previous decline. That's very rude, because you're ignoring the time someone volunteered in order to give you feedback, and it seems like you don't have an interest in working collaboratively or learning the rules our community has.

The majority of sources you gave are either not independent of the subject—interviews with cast & crew fall into this category—or do not go beyond routine coverage, such as saying "this film will be released and will star..." The easiest way for a film article to show notability is to demonstrate the first condition of WP:NFO: this way, you have to wait until the film is actually released and then give two reviews by well-respected critics. The only non-routine source you have is a review in Purbodix, but I can't see how this website is well-known because I can't find any other instances of it being used on the English Wikipedia; I don't see why it's reliable because it doesn't say much on its "Editorial" or "Contact" pages about its corrections policy, fact-checking methods and whether its writers are all professional staff. — Bilorv (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

So far I have mentioned all the present news website links that I have found in Google. Please do not mind for that I resubmitted the page. Well now I understood that the page requires more trusted sources. As soon as I get any other links, I will then resubmit it to you. Then do review and approve the page. Most likely, after the film gets released.. I will contact you. Till then I request you please do not delete this page and let it remain a draft only. Assameseboy (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Assameseboy: thank you for the reply. Drafts are not deleted unless there are no edits for six months (and you receive a warning about this if it reaches five months), so if you keep updating it more regularly than that then there will not be an issue. — Bilorv (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Could you please tell me what are the conditions or, types of publications or internet sources required in order to create a biography of a film director? It will be a great help if you give me a little hint. Thanks and regards:) Assameseboy (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Assameseboy: take a look at WP:RSP for some examples of good and bad sources. The sources don't have to be English-language, or available on the internet, but they need to be widely-distributed and have strong fact-checking policies (so not tabloids). — Bilorv (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

	Teahouse host fast, accurate answer award
	Thank you for your rapid and accurate answer at the Teahouse; you managed to beat me to it! Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 16:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: thanks, I appreciate it! — Bilorv (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for reaching out! How do I just delete the article I created? Or disassociate with me? It keeps getting flagged as COI, which it is not. And it's utterly frustrating. :-( --Nievesismyname (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nievesismyname: we can definitely work this through without just deleting the article. All Wikipedia articles are inherently owned by nobody and can be radically rewritten by anybody. I'll start by explaining why this COI flag exists and why it's applied here—this doesn't mean you have done anything wrong. Despite aiming to provide a neutral point of view, we get lots of people here to advertise and promote their own interests, without any actual interest in writing an encyclopedia. They don't usually signpost that that's what they're doing, even though it's against our rules to not disclose it, so long-term editors have to make their best guess at what is and isn't in this category. There's going to be a lot of mistakes associated with this, because we don't always have enough information to actually work things out. But we need the tag to get more eyes on it, so others can rewrite it and check whether it should be improved or deleted.

I can ask the editors in question what made them think there could be COI in this situation, and I'm sure we can get to a resolution where the tag can be removed. The only thing that stands out is that you uploaded File:Aina Dumlao by David Muller.jpg. Where did you get this image from? You said that it's your "own work" and that you're releasing the copyright freely, but the copyright would (almost certainly) be owned by David Muller if he took the photo, so are you David Muller?

Unrelatedly, I noticed that you had some copied text, sometimes where you changed a word or two, from online sources. This is called close paraphrasing or, in the more extreme cases, copyright violation. This is a legal problem for us, so please make sure you remove anything else from the article that was copied from somewhere else, even if you changed a word or two. To not be close paraphrasing, you need to be rewording a sentence substantially in structure—it's fine if your sentence has the same meaning and information, but not if it's only a word or so different. — Bilorv (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Bilorv,

Jolyon_Petch's own official site has released the copyright. What else does one need? Can we remove the other references? Others have copied the same thing from his official site...

https://www.jolyonpetch.com/discography-new.html

Please check and let me know if you can accept it.

Thank you Ainamera22 (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ainamera22: okay, so the prose (https://www.jolyonpetch.com/about.html) and the table both come from Petch's official site? He says on one page, "Biography is copyright free for fair use", and on the other, "Material is Copyright free and available for fair use". I think this is acceptable as a disclosure of the material into the public domain, but it is a bit confusing, because fair use is about copyrighted (not public domain) material, so it can't be both "copyright free" and "fair use" (and the copyright holder is not in control of what is/isn't fair use). I've asked here about what the copyright status of the text is.

If we assumed that the text is public domain, we still have a couple of problems: copying without attribution is still plagiarism and we'd need to use a template like {{Free-content attribution}} in the reference section. Additionally, copying a press release is antithetical to our neutral point of view and editorial independence from advertisers and conflicts of interest. Any text copied from an artist needs to be checked and rewritten for neutrality and accuracy with a fine-tooth comb. — Bilorv (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I think it is saying that the content is copyright free only for fair use and not for commercial usage. We can use the attribution tag you mentioned. Ainamera22 (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ainamera22: but in that case we cannot use the content, because (a) fair use is not in the control of the copyright holder (by definition you can always use text if it's fair use); and (b) we do not use fair use text, except as brief attributed quotations. The template I gave is not appropriate and instead the content needs to be completely rewritten in your own words. The comment I've received so far at the WikiProject I asked this question at seems in line with what I was thinking about this. — Bilorv (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: What if they send an email to Wikipedia? Ainamera22 (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ainamera22: the content on Wikipedia articles is entirely volunteer-driven and we are part of the open source community, so doing things behind closed doors (via email) is almost never the right move. The way to fix this would be to get them to properly release the content into the public domain on their website or getting them to use a license like CC0. However, this fails to address the problems I gave above with copying a press release. It would also be useful to know: what relationship do you have with Jolyon Petch? — Bilorv (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I read somewhere that you can send an email to Wikipedia OTRS to release the copyrights? Can you please explain the "Copying a press release" thing? I am his nephew's friend. Please check the website again: http://www.jolyonpetch.com/discography-new.html http://www.jolyonpetch.com/about.html Ainamera22 (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ainamera22: yes, you can contact OTRS, but I don't think that's a useful step in this case. The change in disclosure as Petch has done on his website would be fine but CC-BY-SA 4.0 is not compatible with Wikipedia, as we use 3.0. See this page for more.

You need to read this guideline page about conflicts of interest, as someone with a personal connection to the subject: I'd recommend adding the userbox to your (currently non-existent) userpage.

I don't know what part of my explanation you didn't understand: copying a press release is antithetical to our neutral point of view and editorial independence from advertisers and conflicts of interest. Any text copied from an artist needs to be checked and rewritten for neutrality and accuracy with a fine-tooth comb. Can you explain what you need more information about? — Bilorv (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

And someone else has just brought it to my attention that I'm an idiot and CC-BY 4.0 (different to CC-BY-SA 4.0) is compatible with Wikipedia, so the content can be used in the draft with {{Free-content attribution}} (and I've unblanked it and added the templates), but the point I made that we don't just parrot press releases still applies. — Bilorv (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: So, what can I do now? Isn't it in a neutral tone already? The major issue was regarding his discography, which I can't think of any other way to add. I added the COI on my userpage... Should I submit it again for you to review? Ainamera22 (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ainamera22: thank you for adding the COI template. You can resubmit the draft if you feel that it is ready and another reviewer will take a look at it. I won't review it again so that we can get a new opinion. — Bilorv (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Okays. Thanks for everything! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ainamera22 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing and moving to article space a recent page about a literature subject I created. In the pursuit to enrich the encyclopedia, I have another draft article that is very brief, only two paragraphs long or so, and recently published it, but it moved straight to space with no pending submission box or deadline for review; can you take a quick look at it? --> Ramon Rivas. I tried reaching out to another user for help with this, but he seems to be missing in action - Thanks again! Multi7001 (talk) 06:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Multi7001: thanks for the question! In due course someone will patrol this article and they have a number of options available, including nominating it for deletion, moving it to draftspace or marking it patrolled (so that it remains as a live article). We have a bit of a backlog in this process, I believe, as it's a very time-consuming task that requires a lot of expertise. I'm not comfortable enough myself to mark it patrolled, but I'm definitely not seeing any issues that make me think it needs immediate deletion. — Bilorv (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, the book is originally French, and the links and references that you can see at the bottom of the draft page are very reputable media links in France. The book is still quite recent in the USA and Anglo Saxon countries, so very little media is promoting it. How can I do ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerWXy (talk • contribs) 14:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@TylerWXy: whether sources are in French or English or another language is not an issue, but the sources given are passing coverage in media that doesn't look very reliable. In the case that no more sources exist about the book, the topic is not notable and cannot have a Wikipedia article, even if you were to write the most pristine and perfect draft. Wikipedia has notability requirements for a number of reasons, including to discourage people turning us into an advertising platform, to limit our scope to a size that is manageable for our volunteers to maintain, to make sure that each article has the potential to be expanded to a considerable size without sacrificing factual accuracy and to maintain a high reputation among the public. — Bilorv (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

But these are totally reliable sources, since they are national newspapers from the French Country (West of the Country): https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouest-France

and there are plenty of other sources: https://www.ouest-france.fr/pays-de-la-loire/angers-49000/angers-le-skateboard-maxime-en-fait-tout-un- book-6020673

https://lemans.maville.com/sortir/infos_-clermont-creans.-ce-jeune-sarthois-publie-la-bible-du-skateboard-_52734-3574287_actu.Htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerWXy (talk • contribs) 14:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@TylerWXy: have you read the policies and guidelines linked in the draft decline rationale and my comment above? It seems like you are responding faster than is humanely possible to consider and absorb the information I am pointing you to. You can find an answer to your own questions by doing this. Ouest-France is reliable, but not in-depth because it doesn't give detailed critical commentary on the book's prose, storyline, themes etc. (an in-depth review looks like this, for a random example). Other sources like Beach Brother or Skateboard Academy do not look reliable, and they are in any case passing coverage (not in-depth). You should sign comments on talk pages by ending them in the code ~~~~ and indent them by using one more colon (:) than the previous message begins with. — Bilorv (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

	The Civility Barnstar
	So much work goes unnoticed, but when an editor takes extra time to write inclusively and work collaboratively behind the scenes like to you did with the draft of Transgender acceptance in Wales ... it deserves to be recognised. Thank you for making this a better working environment for everyone. Goldsztajn (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Goldsztajn, I really appreciate this. — Bilorv (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your support and trust in my recent run for admin. I'm especially grateful for your nice comments in support. I've had an interesting first few weeks and am learning a lot by being able to better watch (through tools) what admins do. Please call on me if you see making an error, or if you just need help. Thanks again. BusterD (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I would like to ask you why my article for the 131ers keeps on being declined, by both you and others. I have checked the Wikipedia guidelines for notoriety as well as references and sources, and to my knowledge the article is perfectly fit to be published. Yet it keeps on being declined. Please clarify this for me so that I can know what to fix with my article so it can be published. Thank you for your time. Cboi Sandlin (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cboi Sandlin: thank you for the question. In the case of my review, you had resubmitted the draft with no changes. This comes across as rude, like you aren't interested in working with others or following our rules. If you don't understand a decline reason, you should ask the reviewer rather than resubmitting. I am not seeing strength and depth of sourcing in the article that shows notability:

• IMDb is not reliable (it's mostly user-generated)
• Xune Mag looks like quite a small/obscure publication, and the review is not particularly detailed.
• New Noise seems to interview the band, which would make the source not independent. This is probably still the best source, but we need several to show notability.
• Open the Trunk and TooFab are definitely interviews and not independent.
• Folknrock is routine coverage of a particular performance, which isn't significant.

If the band are not notable (which is perfectly possible) then the issue is not with you, but the topic, and there is no way we can host an article on them. If the band are notable, you need more sources to show this. — Bilorv (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I am sure I will be in touch very soon. --Wordslicer (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I noticed you had declined the draft of Derivation of E=mc^(2n+2) from Einstein's E=mc^2 at AfC; I've tagged it for speedy deletion, with A11 seeming the best fit for something where even the units in the title don't make sense. XOR'easter (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: it looked like a hoax or crankery to me, but I'm no physicist. I agree that the A11 fits and am glad to see someone coming to the same conclusion as me. — Bilorv (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. And now it's back in draft space, despite there being literally no chance of making an article out of it. I don't really know the protocol for such situations, but it seems like the best case is that it just languishes taking up space until it gets G13'ed. XOR'easter (talk) 05:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Quite. This didn't meet the three WP:DRAFTIFY conditions, Liz, because there is no "potential merit" (the topic is nonsense) and it's also not true that "there is no evidence of active improvement". It did meet A11 though. — Bilorv (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed this, either an endorsement of the A11 or even permission for U1. I'm really not understanding what your logic here was, Liz. I think the page should be deleted now, as it's either that or it'll eventually be G13'd, possibly with some wasted volunteer time in the intermediate period. — Bilorv (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: just letting you know that it's been undeleted (Draft:Derivation of E=mc^(2n+2) from Einstein's E=mc^2). I think we'll be going in circles by CSD'ing again but you could MFD or we could just leave it (I'm watchlisting and will decline if the author resubmits, assuming it's still looking like crankery). — Bilorv (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. There is sometimes a sentiment against taking this kind of thing to MfD (see a recent example). XOR'easter (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

In case anyone needs an explanation of why this will never be an article: it makes no sense to raise c to a power other than 2 in the mass-energy relation. If you multiply a mass by a speed raised to any power other than 2, you don't get a quantity with units of energy. Simply put, it fails the test that is just about the most basic check-your-work method a physics class would teach. The "references" are what we'd expect for this kind of thing, namely, irrelevant. The first is about apparent superluminal motion in astronomy due to tricks of perspective. The second is a collection of papers about standard relativity theory. "Mass-energy continuum" is a phrase made up by the author of the draft. The third is about one of those oddities where if you define "velocity" in a way that's not physically meaningful for the problem at hand, you can get a number larger than c. The fourth is some people's attempt to invent an extension of ordinary relativity where velocities are larger than c; it's a mathematical exercise with no relevance to the real world, particularly because it only works if space is one-dimensional. These are just the sort of irrelevancies you'd get if you wrote first and then Googled around for "references" to sprinkle in later. In fact, when I Googled "relativity faster than light" just now, the third hit was a churned press release for citation #4. XOR'easter (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Mehedihasn to this explanation, for what it's worth. We are suggesting that you abandon this draft. — Bilorv (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to AfD. I think there's an extra "not" in the last sentence of your nomination. XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bilorv. You helped me out with updates to the International editions section on the Playboy article recently. I've posted a new request to update a low quality source, and make a change in the introduction, but so far, haven't had any response. You can see the full request on Talk:Playboy. I was hoping you'd review the request and implement the changes if you agree with them. Thanks! PLBY ZG (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@PLBY ZG: I've responded to this edit request. — Bilorv (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for being kind and helpful. I really appreciate the time you have taken to review "Lights Up' and helped it become a FA. Viridian Bovary (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Viridian Bovary: thanks, glad to see it passed! — Bilorv (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello How can I move an article on draft space to main Wikipedia --John Gray 23 (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@John Gray 23: you do not have technical permission to do this yet, because of your account age (though you've reached the edit number requirement). Even if you had this ability, I would strongly recommend that you go through the Articles for Creation process instead. This way, an experienced volunteer reviews the draft and if they think it doesn't show notability or one of our other major requirements for articles then they will decline the submission and the draft will remain there for you to improve (although topics need to be notable or no improvement will be possible). If you move the article to mainspace yourself then an experienced volunteer reviews it through a harsher process, because mainspace articles are live and affect our reputation, and it could be deleted straight away (no option to improve it and "resubmit").

Most people create drafts through Wikipedia:Article wizard, which lets you submit them to Articles for Creation when you're ready. As I'm not seeing the normal template that such a draft would have on the one you created, I don't think it's easy for you to submit this yourself but just let me know and I can submit it for you (I have a tool to do so).

Can I ask what drew your interest to this particular subject? If you have a connection to Kashmoney The Force or have been paid by them then that is allowed, but you need to follow some transparency rules. — Bilorv (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Kashmoney The Force is an artiste in Port Harcourt that has been doing some notable works and I think should be put on Wikipedia

Before you submit the post however I would like you to check the article if it will be approved or not if it will be approved I give you my permission to submit it John Gray 23 (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

And the article I wrote was scratch content and I was not paid neither was I in anyway connected to Kashmoney the force John Gray 23 (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay John Gray 23, on Wikipedia we assume good faith so I believe what you've said. Do you have any other accounts or connection to the two creations of the page in mainspace (Kashmoney The Force), both versions of which were deleted? (I can't see their deleted contribution history or content any more than you can as I don't have such technical permissions.) If so, again you'd just need to disclose it I think.

I am an Articles for Creation reviewer, but we all have different opinions so I can only speak for myself. Personally, if I were reviewing this draft I'd put it in the "difficult" pile because it's not obvious what decision to make—so I'd expect there's some chance of it being accepted and some chance of decline. If there are any more reliable, independent, in-depth sources about the artist then you would be improving your chances by adding them. If you take out the YouTube links (these aren't good sources), all of the external links in the article's prose (lead and Career section) and read Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once to merge the three separate copies of the reference titled "I'm living a life of purpose with my service to mankind" then you would be making the strongest positive impression on the reviewer (as well as typographical things that you can work out for yourself —like the word "recently" shouldn't have a hyperlink and "THA EMPIRE DREAMIN RECORDS" shouldn't be in all capital letters).

I linked Wikipedia:Notability before and you might also like to read this section/article: Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals. Just to reiterate, if the community decides that Kashmoney The Force is not notable then not even a perfectly written draft will be accepted (or kept after any possible deletion discussions). It's very tough to work out if things are notable before you start writing drafts on them, but let me know if you'd like further information on what I think are good ways to find other subjects that are pretty certain to be notable. — Bilorv (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

So my draft was deleted no reason was provided.

I need to create an article about Kashmoney the force and I don’t know how to go about it.

The artiste, is a very notable artiste and I will appreciate help to create w wiki article John Gray 23 (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Please read my previous messages, which address your second and third sentences. For the first, the draft was deleted with the reason "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Pinging Deb and Bbb23: I see the previous G5 deletion of the draft now—is this a case of sockpuppetry? — Bilorv (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi --Paulnguyenun (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, hope you don't mind me talking here. I wanted to ask in regards to Socialblade. You said you didn't want auto-curated stats from Socialblade, but all the other YouTube Wiki pages, like Chris Stuckmann and PewDiePie, use Socialblade as a source. Why is it okay for those pages to use it and not this one? Defender miz (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Defender miz, good question! I'm sure you can appreciate that with over six million articles and just a few thousand core volunteers, Wikipedia contains lots of articles with issues in them. Every day I come across copyright violations, neutrality issues, unreliable sources and falsehoods. Wikipedia is a work in progress. When less than 1 in 150 articles meet the not-so-lofty standard of "good", relying on other articles rather than reasoning based on our core policies like Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources is not good unless you know for a fact that the other article is of a reasonable quality. Some people call this argument "Other stuff exists".

You can see that there are sourcing issues with Chris Stuckmann from the banner at the top, and though PewDiePie seems to be in better shape (it's even a good article) I would contest Social Blade as unreliable. What those pages do demonstrate that your draft didn't is notability, through other sources that are reliable, independent and in-depth. Hope this helps! — Bilorv (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I think It's Come 6302 Year.Will be start war Feature.What Happend Next No Anyone Knows? --Raaj Champia (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Raaj Champia, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Can you rephrase? — Bilorv (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Based on your recent edits at Trauma trigger and White privilege, I'm writing to give you a heads-up that another pair of eyes would be useful at Stereotype threat if you have time. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Replied, thanks. — Bilorv (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but how is it not improved? We added national Chinese publications, it was the 3rd highest grossing film in China over a weekend and I don’t understand how copying a synopsis is copyright? It’s the official synopsis for public release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.217.56 (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Not easy to guess without a link, but I assume you're talking about Draft:Re Dai Wang Shi (Are You Lonesome Tonight?)? All published material is by default copyrighted, so we need to see an appropriate Creative Commons (not NC) or public domain release notice from the original copyright holder (and even then, we need to see more rigorous attribution if it's CC with BY). However, it's better anyway to rewrite the synopsis in your own words—Wikipedia doesn't use "teaser"-like language that synopses do (the style of writing that's like "a girl meets an unfortunate end after encountering a mysterious message from her past"). Additionally, beyond the synopsis source (which doesn't show notability because it's not independent if it's copying a press release synopsis) I can't see what sources you added between the rejection here and my more recent rejection. You will really struggle to get this approved unless you can show two reviews in national publications (see WP:NFO). If there are already such sources, summarise them in a "Reception" section.

You'll also need to read WP:COI and WP:PAID and disclose your connection with the subject. — Bilorv (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

It made perfect sense, I proudly maintain! But yes, now that you mention it, the word "while" was terribly ambiguous, as if to say "though" when I meant it to mean "so long as"; good riddance to it, your minimalist approach makes mine look full-on bloated. And no, I have no good excuse for forgetting to write "is", that was 100% stupid, end of story. Anyway, I hope you're having an alright Monday, all things considered. Keep on keeping occasionally lazy, careless and/or distracted volunteer proofreaders like this shameful miscreant honest, comrade! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: thanks for the message! It's the "is" that really threw me, but I see what you mean now. One of the things I love most about Wikipedia is that there is some room for laziness in the proofreading step, as someone else can come along and do that for you... — Bilorv (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Or so at least we sometimes take for granted. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but mark my words, someday a great reckless bastard shall come and screw something up so "royally" that all the good watchdog watchers shall leave this site and never come again! Or maybe I'm just stoned and misappropriating something I heard in Fraggle Rock, as is my major malfunction. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: I'm untouchable. Years of work at WP:AFC has completely inoculated me against bad grammar, spelling, formatting and other crimes against the English language. You couldn't write something worse than the worst thing I've seen if you tried. — Bilorv (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Good to hear, brother! But rest assured, I ain't dat dere aforetold bringer o' bane. Such a scourge may not even be born yet, more something our softer successors need best beware. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hellow, I want to change my user name. How to go about it? --Beauty Bowie (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Beauty Bowie: it's not acceptable to talk to editors like you did here. You will be blocked for personal attacks if you continue to do so. You must not tell volunteers to "stay away" from pages. What accounts do you have other than this one? And what did you mean by "We are receiving a lot of complaints about [Ekdalian]" (who is "we")? — Bilorv (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the article. I'm gonna get the book. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, BorgQueen. Glad the article was interesting enough to pique your curiosity. — Bilorv (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the article. It's also featured on Portal:Germany, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Could you please review it for AfC? It's a high profile film which meets WP:NFF. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand the backlog is getting back out of hand, Kailash29792, but I generally decline queue-jumping requests because I don't want everyone to start asking me. In this case, I took a quick look, but as an upcoming film I don't see that the draft is urgent and without reviews (which are much easier to evaluate as meeting NFO#1) it'd take me quite a thorough look to come to any conclusion about whether it does meet NFF, so I will have to leave this alone (unless I encounter it again during my regular reviewing sessions). — Bilorv (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Alright, take your time. A new poster of the film came today, and has gained much attention online. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Please explain your reasoning for closing this AfD as Keep. I'm especially interested in how you weighed the Keep arguments especially in circumstances where (a) the source evaluation table evaluated the sources using GNG and not NCORP (b) when challenged, not a single Keep !vote engaged to defend their position and (c) no policy/guidelines were argued/defended by Keep !voters. This, to me, should have been relisted even though it has run over the allotted 7 days because there was zero engagement by Keep !voters when challenged and asked to explain. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@HighKing: three users made policy-based arguments, referencing GNG and NCORP. You disputed that their assessments were correct, but were not met with agreement. It is not the closer's job to assess whether each participant was correctly assessing GNG/NCORP (this would be supervoting), but to assess whether they have demonstrated a basic level of understanding of the general reasons why topics are notable. It is also not any participant's job to respond endlessly to bludgeoning if they wish to have their opinion taken into account, but to state their position clearly and understandably. Given the current level of participation at AFD, four users is generally enough for a discussion to be closed if consensus has emerged. I saw a consensus among three users who gave sufficient reasoning to support their position, with one user dissenting (again with sufficient reasoning). You may challenge this closure at WP:DRV if you wish. — Bilorv (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bilorv, there's a lot to unpack in your response but I'll just pick up on one very important aspect of your reasoning which I believe is flawed

it is not the closer's job to assess - that's the opposite of what a closer is supposed to do. See WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS where it states Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.

this would be supervoting - assessing the strength of argument is not a supervote

It is also not any participant's job to respond endlessly to bludgeoning - sure, but your implication here is that asking a participant to justify their !vote based on NCORP guidelines is bludgeoning which is not the case.

Hence my interest in your reasoning to close. Since it is clear you haven't assessed the strength of argument, please reopen the AfD and relist. Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@HighKing: it seems you have misunderstood me. I did not count heads. I looked at strength of argument, which in this case amounted to seeing that the commenters had considered the sources in the article, as well as any others that may exist, and assessed using reasonable logic whether those sources were sufficient for the topic to be notable (via GNG or NCORP or both). To decide whether the commenters were correct in their assessments (i.e. whether I agree with them) would be to supervote. One type of bludgeoning is replying to each comment in an AFD and asking questions that the person you are responding to has already taken into consideration, and then in this case also the closer of the AFD. I have nothing further to say (including if you ask me questions in response that I have already answered), and I stand by my closure, so your options are to take this to DRV or to leave it. For the record, it was obvious to me that you would challenge me on my closure based on your behaviour at the AFD, and I would not have closed it were I just going to overturn it when badgered. — Bilorv (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

When giving examples of identity politics, why zionisim was not mentioned as an example of an influential movement that was inspired by and predicated on identity politics?! --Husseinomar1411 (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Husseinomar1411: Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Can you give some reliable sources (the three highest-quality you have read would be ideal) that say that Zionism "was inspired by and predicated on identity politics"? — Bilorv (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16004646/ Husseinomar1411 (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/israelstudies.19.2.94#metadata_info_tab_contents Husseinomar1411 (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Husseinomar1411: so far as I can see, the first source talks about a certain type of contemporary right-wing Zionism and connects that to a form of "identity politics", but that's not even remotely close to the claim that Zionism "was inspired by and predicated on identity politics". The second source doesn't use the phrase "identity politics". So I am yet to see a reason we would mention Zionism in the article. — Bilorv (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		Congratulations! You have earned The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar for reviewing 88 drafts during the WikiProject Articles for creation July 2021 Backlog Drive. Thank you for your work to improve Wikipedia! On behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation, Enterprisey (talk!) 00:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

No problem fellow colleague. I was not offended at all by the sockpuppet inquiry. Yes I created the page after seeing all the initial episodes of Tex Brown and was impressed. It remains to be seen if it is notable, but I doubt that the series is notable in any case. The three other editors involved need to be considered though as they all seem to be insiders. They are Jmaxwell10, Therealhmaddox and Kennethmank13. They seem to work in the same promotional apparatus if not the same person. As for the fate of the article as a whole, I welcome a discussion and know the result may not be favorable for keeping it. What you nominating me for socketpuppetry did was to highlight my general work for Wikipedia and the good word of colleagues about what I do. By the way, I am one person, a male. So he him not they LOL Still I thank you for your dilliegnce in following what is a questionable article anyhow. werldwayd (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Werldwayd, that's good to hear and I've taken note of that information. — Bilorv (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

When you have the time, could you take a look at the above and lmk whether you think it really deserved to be passed as a GA or not? I think it's B at best, but don't feel comfortable bringing up my concerns to the editors who submitted/reviewed it. Firstly, the page used/uses unreliable sources, and as both editors are active contributors to WP:KO they would have been fully aware of WP:KO/RS and what sources would fall under that. Secondly, the info contained in some sources was misrepresented in the article i.e. worded in such a way to make it seem like the reviews said a particular thing when they in fact did not. Thirdly, and this may just be me nitpicking so if I'm wrong that's fine, but the wording used is oddly phrased in places, a few egs:

• "The song possesses a "cool and crisp" nature..."
• The song's lyrical content consists of the group reflecting on the sentiments of self-doubt and romantic quarrels, at the same time providing a comforting and rejuvenating undertone.
• it was revealed that the song would consist of a emotional concept (I can't say I've seen many song articles, let alone GAs, talk about a song's concept and content like this)

The 2nd pgraph of the bg+rel section uses music streaming sites as sources, as well as as link to a commercial store to support the song's inclusion on an album tracklist, rather than rel secondary sources. For the music video release, it cites the video itself as the source rather than a secondary source. I don't think I'm wrong in my concerns, and thought the tweaks I made after it was passed+the comments left would have spurred either editor to fix the problems, but neither of them have, and I honestly don't have the energy to do all of it myself. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: thanks for the question. First, I don't think there's any bad faith actions here—I've encountered -ink&fables before and found them to be pleasant to interact with, and they said that it was their first GA review. It looks like both nominator and reviewer tried their hardest to enforce a high standard for the article. That someone works in K-pop areas doesn't mean they can't forget some things on KO/RS.

I think the article is in good enough shape that the aim should be to improve it to GA standards, not to get it delisted. The prose doesn't strike me as horrible (and I don't think I understand your objection to it was revealed that the song would consist of a emotional concept); if you want me to look at misrepresentations of reviews you'll need to point me to specific instances because I'm afraid I don't have the time right now to check them all.

I get that it's not your job to improve the article if it's currently sub-GA, so I think the right next step will have to be contacting the nominator and reviewer or starting a discussion on the talk page (escalating to a WikiProject if it doesn't get attention). A GA reassessment (I'd recommend community reassessment) would be better as a last resort. — Bilorv (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I don't think the prose is "horrible" at all, but rather that odd phrasing choices are used in places throughout and it could be written differently. For eg. I've never seen anyone write that a song would consist of x or y concept, but I have seen it said that a music video/album will feature/features x, y or z concepts, or presents a darker concept compared to previous works etc. Or that lyrics consist of more mature themes, not concepts. That's what I meant by saying the wording is strange. Nor was/is it my intention to get it delisted. I just didn't think it was on par with other GAs and that more should have been done to improve it before it was passed. Yes I saw ink&fables say it was their first GA review, but is there no system in place to monitor reviews done by newer reviewers to ensure they are accurately assessing+passing articles? Otherwise more unreliably sourced articles would be made GAs, or ones that could do with a bit of copy-editing/peer review would never get it because the reviewer said it was up to GA standards.
Lord knows I make my fair share of mistakes at times, and I tried to fix some parts to help, but I really feel despaired sometimes that this stuff goes unnoticed by editors who should notice it. I'm sorry if I've taken up your time, but I couldn't think of anyone else as experienced as you to ask at the time, and you've graciously entertained my questions in the past. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I really feel despaired sometimes that this stuff goes unnoticed by editors who should notice it. – The simple reality of Wikipedia is that there are too many things going on for experienced contributors to monitor it all. There are tons of backlogs: thousands of unreviewed drafts, hundreds of thousands of unassessed articles and (at every assessment stage) an unknowable but large number of articles that should be deleted, and notable topics yet to have an article created. In the quality process backlogs, there are thousands of FAs (70%) that need to be reassessed, half of which were promoted over a decade ago when standards were at or below the current GA standard. I've looked at the situation and if I thought the article was uncontroversially nowhere near GA standard then I would be taking action (like delisting immediately), but as it is it's not my priority.

Being a Wikipedia editor is, most of the time, about channeling despair into motivation and a drive to make a dent in some backlog somewhere. This is the point of WP:SOFIXIT. When you see a problem, no-one else will fix it for you, because the site is too vast and the volunteers too few. I would recommend that you go through a rewording top to bottom yourself, because it could take you more time to explain the issues than to fix them (e.g. just change "consist of a emotional concept" to "feature an emotional concept"), particularly if the editors don't have English as a native language (no idea in this case, but it would often be true for K-pop editors for obvious reasons). I appreciate that you have done some of this already, which is appreciated. If you can't fix some issues yourself, you need to be the one to escalate it, and I've suggested some routes to this.

is there no system in place to monitor reviews done by newer reviewers to ensure they are accurately assessing+passing articles? – No. Issues are raised ad hoc in various venues, but we just don't have enough resources to do this. Repeatedly bad reviewers will get noticed, but doubtless some individually bad reviews slip through the cracks.

Your questions are welcome, and there's no need to apologise for asking. If I had more time then I'd be trying to improve the article myself, and if I had less time then I'd be answering more curtly or pointing you elsewhere. — Bilorv (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Carlobunnie and Bilorv, I just somehow happened to be here. Sorry Bilorv for taking some space in your talk page, I am not sure if this is the right place to reply. Carlobunnie, your concerns are legitimate and I would had acknowledged myself if you personally contacted or pinged me on article's talk page. "Blue" was not on my watchlist because I didn't feel the need. If it would had been on my watchlist, I must had taken some actions. I am just sorry that my shortcomings in the review process had caused unnecessary trouble. But I want the article to retain its status but I also expect some help especially on the prose part. I will also inform the nominator as they would be the most affected by this. Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 19:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, -ink&fables, anybody is always welcome on my talk page. I'll let Carlobunnie reply to the rest. — Bilorv (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: thank you for the detailed reply above. My anxiety makes me very nervous sometimes about being bold which is why I don't always just fix things myself, but prefer to ask someone else first (being potentially wrong if I make an incorrect "fix" stresses me greatly). Since my last reply to you, I already started looking for replacement sources, and decided to tackle the grammar issues as well. Apologies for not acknowledging your reply until now. I only just saw it as ink&fables pinged me in their comment. @-ink&fables: as I mentioned in a comment above, I didn't feel comfortable contacting you directly at the time because I wasn't sure whether my concerns were legitimate or if I was just being overly picky. I reached out to Bilorv first as a way to gauge that. You didn't cause "trouble" of any sort so please don't think so. There's no need to think the article will lose its status either as I didn't state at any point that I wanted it delisted. As Bilorv has confirmed, some additional cleanup/review should take care of the remaining problems, which I will do myself. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Carlobunnie: I really appreciate your help. Please feel free to ask for any kind of help. And also feel open to point out any of my mistakes or concerns related to me or my edits directly on my talk page. Thank you again. -ink&fables «talk» 20:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Carlobunnie, thank you for taking your time to point out things that looked worrisome in the article. I also don't have the article in my watchlist, so my apologies for not addressing your concerns sooner. I will replace some of the sources that you mentioned and tweak the wording accordingly, as I was the one who rewrote the article in the first place.

I would also like to point out that the KpopStarz source used in the MV section may have been deemed generally unreliable at WP:KO/RS, however that article specifically consisted of an exclusive interview with the video's production team which had exceptionally valuable information that I couldn't find anywhere else. As the article were not making any contentious claims, was not user-generated content, were attributing the info directly from the video producers, and couldn't be found anywhere else, I didn't see how that specific article would be unreliable. But if you insist that because the source is found at WP:KO/RS#UR and should be barred from use of Wiki, then I'll have no choice but to remove it. Best, ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 20:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, what if I'd like to add an article about myself? I'm a well-known blogger and an author to be .. How can I do this? --MohamedAbdelMohsen23 (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@MohamedAbdelMohsen23: take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Autobiography and Help:Your first article. Because Wikipedia needs to maintain a neutral point of view, which necessitates editorial independence from our subjects, I can only recommend that you do not try to create an article about yourself. If you are "notable"—Wikipedia jargon meaning "the type of topic within our scope" (and not "successful" or "important")—then someone else may create an article on you. If you insist on creating an article about yourself, you must do this through the Article wizard, but I can save you a lot of wasted time if you present to me the reliable independent in-depth sources about you so I can say if you stand a chance of having the draft accepted. Creating a new article is, even putting aside concerns people will have over your conflict of interest, one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia and the majority of newcomers who try to do this fail. — Bilorv (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I got it .. How can I share with you my sources? I'm not allowed to post external inks here. --MohamedAbdelMohsen23 (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@MohamedAbdelMohsen23: thanks for the reply. You should be able to post links freely. If a link is blocked then it's likely because it's an unreliable source, but you can still point me to it by omitting the http(s). — Bilorv (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Bilorv

HYG

Facebook profile with around 200K followers: facebook.com/MohamedAbdelMohsen85

YouTube channel with 12K subscribers youtube.com/MohamedAbdelMohsen

Featured on TV tinyurl.com/u5a67um

Featured on a local newspaper tinyurl.com/r5gbylt

And on other online news sources like www.alwasela.com/720533 tinyurl.com/324uemvu

What do you think? --MohamedAbdelMohsen23 (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

No, MohamedAbdelMohsen23, I'd expect this to stand less than a 1 in 100 chance. Facebook and YouTube are not independent of the subject (and 12K subscribers is 10 to 100 times smaller than the smallest notable YouTubers), and the TV appearance and local news sources are something but we'd really be looking for much higher-profile coverage for notability, like substantial national coverage in multiple independent sources. For the record, the reason these links were disallowed would be the URL shortener, as people can use these maliciously to redirect people to unsafe websites. — Bilorv (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

English Is Angels Language world saying.But India Country Not Larnging Perfectly Not Spoken.English Language Is India's DAVIL'S Davil Language.Anyone perpectly not spoken. It's Devil Done. --Raaj Champia (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Raaj Champia: just to let you know, you asked the question twice, and both times it went through. I'm not quite sure what your question is here. This is the English Wikipedia and there are other versions maintained by other communities in many other languages. — Bilorv (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, I was just unsure about it myself and kept grumbling that their weren't enough sources, but I'm glad to have it out there. Now, I'll probably try to find an image to go along with it, to go in the infobox. --Historyday01 (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, Historyday01. I did think it was a bit borderline but it's notable in my view; if it includes all the major sources that are out there then it might as well go to mainspace, and if anyone wants to challenge it then we get a firm answer one way or another at AFD. — Bilorv (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I can agree. Hopefully more people will write about it at some point, so more sources can be added, but we'll see what happens with that. Historyday01 (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

im lost on what to do --Bebe07 (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bebe07: thanks for reaching out! I'm guessing you've been pointed to this article by the suggested edits tool? Well the two issues tagged at the top of the article suggest the following:

1. Add more hyperlinks within the article. In the Visual Editor, there's a chain-like link symbol in the toolbar you can use to add links to text that you have highlighted. In the code editor, you link a page by using code like in this example: [[Rhode Island|the smallest U.S. state]] (producing: the smallest U.S. state).
2. Add links to the page from other articles. This would require you to search relevant pages, seeing if any mention the topic, and if not finding an article where you could add a mention and a link. Whenever you add a sentence to Wikipedia, you need a reliable source for that fact, but you could maybe re-use one of the sources from the article.

You could also make improvements with anything else that stands out: do any of the sentences look clunky or take you more than one read to understand the meaning of? The first thing I notice is that "This commission is also called Mudaliar Education Commission after the name of" isn't a full sentence—do any of the references following the passage allow you to work out how this sentence should end? If that fails, explore the page history to see who added it and when, because maybe they could work out what they were doing and how to fix the issue. — Bilorv (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for including Graham Linehan's writing credits, must be the first time somebody asked for something on his work and not his views.165.73.228.154 (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the edit suggestion. — Bilorv (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for creating The Transgender Issue! fyi, there is a Women writers & their works edithon happening at WIR where you could add this lovely article. Beccaynr (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Beccaynr, I've added it there. — Bilorv (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear Birlov, thanks for your comments on the page I made for the Oasis tour 'Don't Believe the Truth'. Regarding the comment "Some reviews/in-depth descriptions would help - the topic is probably notable but routine local announcements of the gigs don't show it" - the references I added to certain tour dates were actual reviews from various media outlets not 'local announcements'.

'What was the stage setup like?' There are no references to this because it was a standard state set. The other questions are answered in the various newspaper / media reviews which I linked to - newspaper reviews which were independent of the group. The page I have produced is at least as good as the one another Wikipedia user produced for the Heathen Chemistry tour (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathen_Chemistry_Tour) and mine is far better referenced. As such I respectfully ask that you let it pass and complete the list of Oasis tours on the main band page. Fans would definitely like information about this tour since it is linked to the 'Lord Don't Slow Me Down' documentary which I referenced in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D1PD1 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, D1PD1. The questions in my comment were sort of rhetorical, in the sense that I'm not looking for an answer to be told to me, but for the answers to be made available within the article. If you incorporate all of the information from those references into the article then I'll be happy to take another look.

The article you've pointed me to, Heathen Chemistry Tour, is a particularly bad one: it was created in 2009 when standards were lower and has a tag at the top, "This article needs additional citations for verification." It would be a good candidate for you to work on improving, if appropriate sources exist (and if not then it needs to be nominated for deletion). We generally recommend against creating an article as your first major task on Wikipedia, because that's like trying to drive a bus before driving a car. However, you've not chosen a bad topic and your draft does look promising. — Bilorv (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok thank you for the further feedback and comments about the 'Heathen Chemistry tour' page. I will amend the page in line with your suggestions when I have time. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by D1PD1 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)