User talk:Bilorv

Please avoid changing "Trump" to "Drumpf"

Hi Bilorv. In one of your recent edits, you changed the word "Trump" to "Drumpf". I assume that this was unintentional and caused by having the Drumpfinator extension enabled. To avoid this kind of mistake in the future, please disable the extension before editing articles that mention Trump. Thank you. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: Yes, it was from the extension; sorry about that, and thanks for fixing it. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Taskmaster reverts

Hi. I see you blanket reverted my edits to the Taskmaster article, under the summary of "re-copyediting". I notice the paragraphs I'd re-written have been reverted so they're wordier than necessary and contain information not necessarily needed in a summary article.

If you want to include info that's "relevant to the show's history and relevant to its present" that's fair enough. If you're going to say that, please actually do so – info about the first Edinburgh task is less notable than the comedians who took part; which I've now added. I've also added info about the inspirations behind the show (plus sources) – more relevant to the show's history than what the first task was. 86.154.155.197 (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

"Blanket reverted" is inaccurate as I left the majority of your changes there. It more describes your edit, which included replacing "are not" with the informal and inappropriate "aren't", I assume just because I was the one who changed it from "aren't" to "are not". (Please see WP:CONTRACTION.)

I felt that the first task was a significant fact; it's not really a "summary article" because Wikipedia is not paper, so I felt it could be included. But I don't feel particularly strongly on this, so if you really want it gone then fine. As for the fact about Alex being used frequently in earlier series, and it now being discouraged, I don't understand your objection – it's a fairly substantial change in the rules of the game.

Thank you for your edits, particularly the addition of new sources. I have made uncontroversial changes to them here. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Alex Shih^Talk 15:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Bilorv, after seeing your edits on my watchlist I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The End of the F***ing World

Hi Bilorv. Thanks for your additions to the page The End of the F***ing World. Unfortunately, I'm in to view one of the sources as it's subscription-only. I'll keep an eye out for other interviews to support the text: hopefully there will be other sources emerging as the series enjoys more press coverage. Regards, ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dom Kaos: I can assure you it is not original research. There is no requirement for sources to be free or readily available – check out Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. In any case, the source is free – you just need an account. I've removed the tag and am planning to expand that section a bit based on the same source (I was interrupted earlier before I could finish everything I was planning to write). I can quote you parts of the article if you do not believe me, but everything I wrote was based on a reliable source and not a word was my own interpretation. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The Shining Soldiers

No idea what I'm doing, but why are you removing useful information from the Black Mirror episodes with the bees? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandybrigwell (talk • contribs) 19:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mandybrigwell: Thanks for your edit, but everything we write on Wikipedia has to be backed up by a reliable source – see Wikipedia:Verifiability. There are a few reasons for this: the simplest is that otherwise people can easily insert untruths and other editors, and readers, need to be able to check what is correct and what isn't. Another key one is significance – Wikipedia doesn't aim to include every possible bit of information that exists, so looking at what reliable sources discuss allows us to easily work out what should and shouldn't be included.

In this case, I'm afraid I doubt a reliable source about the song exists, and therefore we can't mention it in the article, but if you can find an interview, critical review or other reliable source (rule of thumb: something published by someone who was paid to write it), then you can add it back, along with a reference to the source (if you need help with the code for this, just ask, but WP:INCITE gives a basic overview).

Also, one small thing – on talk pages, we need to sign our comments by writing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of our post. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Virtual Accelerator

@Bilorv I included neutral references in the article [Accelerator]. Could you review and let me know if you see the need for further changes, please? Virakiwi (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)@Virakiwi

Request on 06:27:46, 1 April 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Yrarendar

• Yrarendar (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Trafic (journal) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Yrarendar (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear Bilrov

Thank you for you feedback.

I am a bit confused about your comment with regard to my sources. Are sources from French publications not accepted? I have included 8 sources. In some cases I reference the actual journal because it includes the names of the founder and editor; I also cite the website of the publisher for the purposes of establishing dates (furnished by the publisher) and the names of the founder. Also cited are The Cinemathèque [government institution] (and the Bibliothèque du film [the Library of Film, a government institution]) and more importantly an article published in the prominent French newspaper Le monde. [Le monde as you probably know is the equivalent to the New York Times in the English-speaking world.

I added the entry because when I clicked on Trafic while reading the wikipedia entry on Raymond Bellour (French film theorist - one of the original editorial board members) there was no entry but a request to add an entry. Since I am familiar with the journal and read French fluently, I added the entry. It would be difficult to add an entry on this journal without a knowledge of French. French wikipedia includes an entry: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafic_(revue). I found a bit more information than was available in the French entry. I didn't include some information in the entry because of problems with sources. The reference

"La Cinémathèque française - Bibliothèque du film". 2013-05-13. Retrieved 2018-03-31.

was cited in the French wikipedia entry on Trafic; however, when I entered the url into the automatic citation option the address and from were what you see above (in the French version the article is attribute to Axelle Ropert.

Please do let me know what further information I should be providing. I am new to Wikipedia but I have had one article accepted and I am not certain what I am doing differently here in terms of referencing, except that my major references (the article from Le Monde, and the article published on the Cinémathèque/BIFI website) are in French.

Many thanks for you help! I look forward to clarification about my sources.

References

"Editions P.O.L - Trafic 1 - Collectif". www.pol-editeur.com. Retrieved 2018-03-31.
"La Cinémathèque française - Bibliothèque du film". 2013-05-13. Retrieved 2018-03-31.
"[Front Matter]". Trafic. 79: 1. Autumn 2011.
"Editions P.O.L - Trafic 1 - Collectif". www.pol-editeur.com. Retrieved 2018-03-31.
"[Front Matter]". Trafic. 79: 1.
"Serge Daney - Babelio". www.babelio.com (in French). Retrieved 2018-03-31.
"Jean-Claude Biette". IMDb. Retrieved 2018-03-31.
"Vingt ans de "Trafic" au Centre Pompidou". Le Monde.fr (in French). Retrieved 2018-03-31.

Yrarendar (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Yrarendar: hi there. French language sources certainly are accepted on the English Wikipedia, but I think the article needs a couple more secondary sources before it can be accepted. IMDb is not a reliable source (anyone can edit it) and the Babelio website does not look reliable (it says "Source: Wikipedia", and Wikipedia is obviously something anyone can edit). The references to the journal itself are allowed, but they do not show "notability"—Wikipedia jargon for whether a subject is suitable for inclusion based on our policies. If I'm not mistaken, the only reliable secondary sources in your draft are then to Bifi.fr, and Le Monde, both of which look good, but are not enough on their own to show notability. If you can find another couple of reliable sources like these (and then preferably trim the unreliable IMDb and Babelio content), then this should demonstrate notability. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia so far, and just ask if you need any help or you don't understand anything I've said. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 19:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Trafic

I have tried to revise my draft entry on Trafic per your very useful advice. Thanks for taking the time to spell things out. I found another reference for Jean-Claude Biette's death, for which I had used IMDb, which you helpfully indicated was not appropriate. I did wonder about IMDb - I thought that it was reliable because the information is the base for a premium subscription service that offers further details. The public can contribute, but only in certain areas such as plot summaries (which are usually ok but sometimes terrible - Wikipedia tends to be better in this area though still erratic) - these entries from the public are signed, and indicated as such. Not a problem at all because I did find the information elsewhere - but just wondering for future reference. I did also wonder about referencing - is it ok to use the automatic reference option? I noticed that if I use it, the author's name in the case of a newspaper article is often not included. Is it preferable to use the "manual" option and click on the news template? Do let me know if you have any further tips for new users. Again many thanks for your help. It is much appreciated.

Yrarendar (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Yrarendar: yes, IMDb is a mixed bag – there are some tips on when to use it at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb – but generally if information is on IMDb, there is a more reliable source where it can be found. In general, we have to be careful because it's not too clear which parts are contributed by the public and by professionals (at least not to me; you sound quite familiar with it).

As far as referencing goes, whatever you find most convenient is probably best. The main thing is to give enough information for someone else to find the source; whether you use the "cite news" template or type it manually or use another tool does not matter, as long as the end result is okay. The references you've added are all perfectly fine.

The draft looks good now, and KJP1 has commented that they think it now demonstrates notability, so you can probably resubmit it. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I am so impressed by the generosity of more experienced authors who help those new to Wikipedia - such generosity is rare in today's world.

Yrarendar (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)