This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

This archive is updated manually by Bilorv.

Archive created 19:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I was astounded at how fast my edit was reverted since it contained no foul language. Can I just ask, is there a way you detect this? I am interested in creating a machine learning bot which is able to detect nonconstructive edits. Thanks. 2A04:4540:6F03:7A01:FDD5:45C8:638E:D4D7 ( talk) 00:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how much you know about Wikipedia, but the Watchlist tool allows users to see recent changes that have been made to a page. About 40 users have The End of the F***ing World on their watchlist, and I just happened to check mine about a minute after you made the edit.

I suppose the real giveaway in your edit would be the phrase "just when things seemed like they were going so well", which possibly a bot could detect is a joke (combined with the fact you're editing without an account), but I would be worried that any bot that spotted your edit would have a lot of false positives from new editors making good faith contributions that needed to be reworded / adapted to Wikipedia's style.

User:ClueBot NG is by far the most well-known anti-vandal bot (possibly the only one), and it is astonishingly accurate; the edits which score highly on its radar, but not high enough to be reverted automatically, are added to a queue for Huggle users to go through. — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 00:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bilorv. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right may be revoked by an administrator. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 05:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

At this page I find it reported that Robert Gray, this historian who wrote is the creator of most of the article's current content, may be on vacation. Can the seven days be extended to seven days after his return? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@ Michael Hardy: Ah, right. It looks like he hasn't edited since June. I'm happy to wait a bit longer, but not indefinitely. Do you have a time frame within which you expect him back? — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 23:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the list of Black Mirror awards and nominations. I know this is a very different show, but you seem to know how to compile awards lists quickly, so I was wondering if you have any interest in creating List of awards and nominations received by RuPaul's Drag Race from RuPaul's Drag Race? --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 00:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@ Another Believer: Yeah, no problem. I don't know if I work faster than anyone else but I'm happy to do it. — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 00:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much! --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 01:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Any time! I'll get to work on improving some of the referencing. — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 01:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Congrats on the FL! --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 14:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! It's my first piece of featured content, and hopefully not my last. — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 14:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Glad to hear! --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 22:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Truly awesome job on Ignore all rules!! Thanks for all you do. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The other day you merged two Wikidata records, the second of which I'd created. Would you please do the same for Ros Pesman (Q18640512) and Roslyn Pesman-Cooper (Q2402071) are the same person. The first has far more Wikidata and links to the English Wikipedia. The second is from the Dutch version. Thank you. Oronsay ( talk) 00:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@ Oronsay: Done, and for future reference I did it using this gadget that should be easy to add to your preferences, and even easier to use. — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 00:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Bilorv, I will look into the gadget and see how I go with it. Oronsay ( talk) 00:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

you are happy, i suppose? After you made a cripple of the tabela...strange..So, please dear user dont revert it. It's much better look now, cause it was so big problem for the whole Wikipedia, except it take half an hour of my life time. Greetings.-- Rethymno ( talk) 00:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@ Rethymno: hi there! I'm not sure exactly what you mean. What I did in this edit was just to remove the unused boxes and labels in the key of the pie chart. You then undid my edit but I wasn't sure why, because you didn't leave an edit summary – you should always explain whenever you're undoing someone's changes. I'm still not exactly sure what you think is the problem with me removing blank parts of a template that aren't supposed to be there when unused. — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 00:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

If you are so much interested in former tabela of Brdovec population from the 1910 census, then read my comment with much atenshion. But it's former anyway, so it's not important anymore. Good bye.-- Rethymno ( talk) 01:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you reverted my edit yesterday without messaging me. What is your reason for preferring "In popular culture" to "Controversy"? I added the "In popular culture" heading to the paragraph about a Lewis episode on 28 August and think that Examination times does not really fit in the same heading. 81.86.211.166 ( talk) 10:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! I actually changed it to a level 2 heading, so it's just called "Examination times", and not part of "In popular culture" any more because I agree that's not appropriate. "Controversy" is a loaded term to use, particularly when the topic isn't described in the article as controversial, and we don't use multiple headings for the same content so we can't nest "Examination times" inside "Controversy" with no other content in the "Controversy" section. — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 14:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw the heading that you had reversed my edit and for some reason I did not check exactly what you had done. Not using multiple headings for the same content makes sense and I am happy with Examination times as a heading. 81.86.211.166 ( talk) 17:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem – I should have mentioned that in my edit summary. I'll try to be a bit clearer on future occasions. — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 18:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations, I am fairly new. Please could you show me a link for "we don't use multiple headings for the same content" as I couldn't find it. 81.86.211.166 ( talk) 09:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I can't really find a link for it – it's just standard practice and common sense (otherwise what's to stop somebody from giving one paragraph five different headings, all nested inside each other). MOS:HEAD and MOS:BODY have some content related to section headers, if you want to learn more. — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 10:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for not including an edit summary but I was planning on blanking the page then immediately moving the page but it didn't work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt14451 ( talk • contribs) 12:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@ Matt14451: no worries! You need administrator privileges to delete a page, and you can only move a page to a title that doesn't already exist, so we've just got to wait for an admin to help. Thanks for pointing out my mistake, and next time just remember to leave an edit summary for all your edits. By the way, on talk pages please sign your comments by ending them with ~~~~. Thanks! — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 13:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to sign. Matt14451 ( talk) 13:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Farrah Storr, Bilorv!

Wikipedia editor SkyGazer 512 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Considering how many good quality articles you've created and the fact that you already have NPR rights, you should consider applying for autopatrolled at WP:PERM/AP.

To reply, leave a comment on SkyGazer 512's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@ SkyGazer 512: thanks for the note! I had in my head somehow that the threshold was 50 articles, which I passed recently anyway. I've requested and received the right. — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 23:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

My edit were completely neutral. I simply added factually accurate information relevant to the topic. Your removal of these edits seems to be contradictory to Wikipedia's neutral stance. I've read pages with obvious biases and they should be the ones getting modified, not a simple addition of facts. Kingkabins ( talk) 04:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@ Kingkabins: I'm afraid it was noticeably non-neutral. I've never viewed the article before; yesterday I was skimming it and within 30 seconds I noticed the lead had a non-neutral phrase that looked like an editor had recently inserted it. I went to the page history and saw the two most recent edits (yours) were all subtle aspersion-casting. If you start a discussion on Talk:Brett Kavanaugh, I'm sure some editors will be happy to debate the merits of the content you changed; I'm not a subject expert on contemporary American politics. I understand and believe that you made the edits in good faith with the intention of balancing neutrality, but they stuck out like a sore thumb. If they are to be re-added, I think it needs talk page consensus. — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 12:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I still fail to understand how facts contain a bias. Your removal of the word "After" replacing it with "before" shows completely how uninformed you are on the topic. Self admittedly claimed to be no expert, so I think you should refrain from making changes in areas you lack understanding. The bias could also be coming from your own personal beliefs influencing your decision making ability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingkabins ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi There,

I made an edit to remove the mention of a twist ending in the summary/overview of The Good Place as that can be considered a spoiler. While its technically correct, putting this in the Reviews/Reception section will provide the same information while not spoiling content for people who haven't watched the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vagvagvagvag ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@ Vagvagvagvag: hi, and thanks for the message. The Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Spoiler says "Spoilers are no different from any other content and should not be deleted solely because they are spoilers." If this was any other aspect of the show—praise for an actor or the set design or whatever—we would mention it in the lead, and hence even though it's a spoiler, we can't treat it differently to any other kind of content. (The lead needs to summarise all the important parts of the subject and the rest of the article.) If you're looking to avoid spoilers for a show, you shouldn't be searching for the show online, and particularly not reading the Wikipedia article. Now I appreciate that The Good Place is slightly different in that the viewer isn't expecting a twist at all, but the lead isn't giving the twist away, just saying that there is one. — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 18:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@ Bilorv: Hi Bilorv, I completely agree that spoilers should not be treated differently from other content and should not be deleted from the entirety of the wikipedia article. This is not what my suggestion referred to, as I only suggest that this mention is better served in the Reception section of the article. Respectfully, how would mentioning the twist ending in the opening summary for the page improve the quality of the content or represent the information better than if it was in the Reception section? If the mentions of the twist ending are discussed in reception area, then there is no harm done to those who have not watched the show. They can still gain that information from further down in the article. There are many people who research shows by reading the wikipedia summary, and it has been proven that knowing of a twist ending can change how a viewer perceives the media during their first viewing. It doesn't matter if the viewer knows what the twist is, only that they expect a twist to occur. (Apologies if I mess up the formatting on this post). — Vagvagvagvag _{(c) (talk)} 2:52PM, 26 October 2018 (EST)

Dear Bilorov, I reverted your edit, for two main reasons

1) there is nothing controversial in what I've written, as it is true that the term patriarchy is controversial 2) the article itself is not referenced at each line, so I do not need to do it either. The first part is meant to provide the reader with some context.

In conclusion, please do not remove or revert the content, if anything, try to expand on it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotele1982 ( talk • contribs) 12:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@ Aristotele1982: Per WP:MINREF, inline citations are required for any material that has been "challenged" by an editor (such as by removing it). My removal counts as a challenge, so inline citations are now needed. The state of the rest of the article is irrelevant, as it's not of particularly good quality, but everything in the body is either sourced or tagged with {{ citation needed}} to show that it should be sourced.

There are definitely statements which you wrote that are controversial, such as "Black Feminists have criticised the (mainly) white radical Feminist critique of the family as patriarchal as many black women see the family as a bulwark against white racism in society." This is a broad general statement about a large group of people criticising one of the most fundamental aspects of feminist theory, so it definitely needs a citation—specifically, a citation saying "within black feminism there has been a lot of criticism of patriarchy as...", and not just the opinion of a single black feminist. Just to be clear, I'm not doubting the veracity of the statement, but verifiability is one of our most important policies and it needs to be abided by. — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 12:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I am referencing the statements right now, thanks again for the suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotele1982 ( talk • contribs) 12:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

A new section is found in talk and besides, you are removing reference material, and you cannot do that, did you know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotele1982 ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@ Aristotele1982: I've cited three things which you have violated, edit warring, bold-revert-discuss and most importantly the bright-line three-revert rule. With each reversion you make, you are actively making it less likely that anything you write will be kept in the article. Continued edit warriors may be blocked indefinitely. You are the one making changes to the status quo so you are the one that needs to establish consensus on the talk page before reverting other users. — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 16:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You tried to block me, when I was simply editing and referencing, I could not find the text a digited this is the reason why I reverted the status three times Aristotele1982 ( talk) 16:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC).