User talk:Bilorv

Draft:Raging Fire (film)

Hey! Just a heads up, you declined the submission of Draft:Raging Fire (film) for article creation. It looks like the creator of the article went ahead and copy-pasted created the article in the main space anyways at Raging Fire (film). I've already put it up for deletion and left a message on their talk page, but wanted to let you know in case they follow up with you. BOVINEBOY2008 09:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bovineboy2008: thanks for the heads up and thanks for your edits relating to this topic. — Bilorv (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:List of Digimon Adventure (2020 TV series) characters

Hello, I read the comment, but I must admit I need help, please. Thank you. Fico Puricelli (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Fico Puricelli and thank you for the message. Wikipedia uses a set of characteristics which we call "notability" to decide whether a topic is suitable for an article. The simplest case would be in the case of a TV series, where there need to be significant coverage of the show in newspapers, magazines etc.—other secondary sources (those not produced by people involved in the creation of the TV series). Subtopics are trickier to characterise—for example, a TV series being notable does not mean that every episode should have a standalone page. In the case of a page about characters, there should be enough reliable sources that mean the information could not reasonably be contained on a single page about the TV series. For instance, a character who appears in two or three episodes of a long-running show is not significant for Wikipedia's purposes unless a lot of reviewers have commented on them.

In the case of Digimon Adventure, I see that your draft lists a lot of antagonists and minor characters, but Wikipedia does not aim to be an aggregator of information about fiction. We just aim to record what has been discussed in substantial media criticism. So if there are lots of national reviewers who commented on (e.g.) Spadamon then the character needs to be mentioned, but otherwise the information isn't suitable for Wikipedia.

In contrast, Wikia (or "Fandom" is another name for the site) does aim to be (in part) an aggregator of information about fiction and so you could contribute character information to the Digimon Wiki, or start your own wiki on the site for Digimon Adventure specifically.

Let me know if this clears up your confusion, and if it doesn't then try to be as specific as possible about which parts you do not understand. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Heads up

Just a heads up, I have withdrawn the third nomination for Where's My Mind Tour and Blood Harmony. Also asked the reviewers to fail "I Lost a Friend" and Live at Third Man Records (Billie Eilish album) just so there are no more problems with you and potentially other editors. I admit, I am very young, but I am not a child. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi The Ultimate Boss and thank you for the message. I believe you have misunderstood the purposes of my communications. The issue that I wanted to point out is your actions on Where's My Mind Tour which ignored the feedback from two reviewers (one of which is me). Your re-nominations go against our collaborative process on Wikipedia. You used the terms "fight" and "beef" in other edits, but there is a difference between argument and constructive criticism or polite disagreement. Wikipedia editors must work together when they disagree, which is a normal part of the editing process. I have not asked you to withdraw any other nominations and so these actions are your decision, but not something I wanted you to do. — Bilorv (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

What I thought is that you would bring up all my nominations to GA reassessment and have them revoked, even after wasting countless hours bringing stubs up to higher quality. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The Ultimate Boss: I have no plan to do this. Nonetheless, it is never a waste of time to improve articles—our articles serve our readers better when they are improved, regardless of our internal quality ratings. — Bilorv (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The Ultimate Boss, Yes, its disappointing to search up a thing you like only for there to be a paragraph worth of content. That's why we do what we do. If all we do is update articles about Final fantasy for the 4,000th time, then what about that one guy that wants to look up Ailinzebina? Le Panini ^[🥪] 06:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Move good/featured article topicons next to article name

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Move good/featured article topicons next to article name. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on it, given your comments in the other discussion below on the extent to which readers notice the icons. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

@Sdkb: thank you for the message! I am interested in this topic and have left a comment there. Also happened to take a look at the whole VPP page and left a comment about the suggested article sweep, which I notice you also proposed. — Bilorv (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Piers Corbyn

There is already a subsection of conspiracy theories. But... it is not his given or professional designation. Remove it and libk as well. Stephenfryfan (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Stephenfryfan: You will need to discuss this matter on Talk:Piers Corbyn if you wish to create a new consensus, given that recent consensus has been established to describe Piers Corbyn as a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence of the article. — Bilorv (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy Tube

Hi Bilorv!

You recently undid an edit to Philosophy Tube I made. Originally the summary of the article stated that the channel explores philosophy from a "left-wing perspective." I edited the article to remove that point. The point was a repetition of an opinion from one journalist in an editorial perspective, which was cited in the article's body. I disagree that articles should repeat opinions as uncited statements in their summaries. By this logic any opinion published on any media channel of any political persuasion can be repeated as though it were fact, out of context, in the most widely-read parts of articles. For example, one could edit the article about the company Uber and cite in the body that Katie Hopkins in the Daily Mail believes that Uber is less safe than taxis according to her column (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4911364/London-safer-without-Uber-writes-Katie-Hopkins.html), then repeat this in the article's summary that "Uber rides are less safe than taxis." Or one could edit the article about the 2017 Catalan independence referendum and cite in the body that Hopkins in the Daily Mail wrote that there was "the suggested involvement of Soros" in the debate (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4939154/KATIE-HOPKINS-Sickening-sight-police-beating-Catalans.html), then cite that in the article's summary as "George Soros was suggested to be involved in the debate."

Keen for your thoughts. 217.116.228.10 (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi! One could do neither of the things you give as examples for a few reasons: the Daily Mail is not a reliable source (see WP:RSP) and the information would not be due weight because there would be other sources which do not agree with the given assertions. You are correct that another reason is that opinion pieces are not treated as fact, but in let's stick to the Philosophy Tube case. In this case, the "left-wing" attribute is based on characterisation in the most professional, detailed, high-quality review of the subject that I know of—the article is about a work of art (the YouTube videos) rather than a company or collection of factual statements and so in this case, the interpretation of the art by professional critics becomes different to an opinion piece, rather being an important facet of the work to comment on.

Since you dispute the information (I didn't know who would really dispute that Thorn is left-wing—himself, fans and opponents all widely characterise him as such) I can provide additional sources:

... made modest stars out of leftists like Natalie Wynn, a YouTube personality known as ContraPoints, and Oliver Thorn, a British commentator known as PhilosophyTube New York Times

Thorn is part of a contingent of YouTubers often referred to as “LeftTube” Regeneration Mag

With his YouTube channel "Philosophy Tube" he is one of a generation of new influencers who are turning to left-wing issues. In an entertaining way, with partly elaborately produced videos (machine translated) Deutsche Welle

etc. etc. etc.

You can find all of these sources in the article already, which is why the lead would be incomplete without the characterisation of the content as left-wing (since the channel began to change style in 2018). Let me know if this addresses your query, or if you have any other questions about Wikipedia. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bilorv!

Thanks for responding. Just to clarify: I don't _at all_ dispute the characterisation of Thorn that he holds opinions that are commonly opined to be "left-wing." Nevertheless, I remain troubled by its repetition as _fact_ on Wikipedia.

I'd be much more satisfied if the article simply said "many sources have characterised Thorn as holding a "left-wing" perspective. Perhaps I should have just edited it to that. :) How do you feel about that edit?

Here's my trouble with repeating "left-wing" as fact instead of opinion, regardless of the perceived merit of that opinion. "Left-wing" is inherently a subjective characterisation, and a relative one: I think it's reasonable to say that George H. W. Bush was more left-wing than, say, Joseph McCarthy. If something or someone is "left-wing" in general, it is only "left-wing" in relation to the average perceived political position of popular discourse (an example model of which: the 'Overton window'), which is ever-shifting on the "left-right" spectrum. That shifting nature of acceptability somewhat undermines whatever merit we assign to people's opinions. The present policy that highly-ranked opinion can be passed as fact implies that Wikipedia can be a mouthpiece that turns opinions into facts when they're biased by the current political centre. I respectfully disagree with this. Wikipedia supposed to repeat facts.

"Left-wing" is also a characterisation that carries a lot of political weight, with the potential to cause readers to discredit Thorn before having engaged with his points. In other words, by itself it doesn't actually mean anything (as stated above), but will still cause some readers to form a bias towards or against whatever is called "left-wing." Thorn has often tried in his videos to "stay neutral," merely discussing topics based on their logical consistency, but nevertheless often results in a position that has been commonly associated with the "left-wing" (there's a good video of his on the free market economics of the video game industry that serves as an example). I'm not saying I don't think it's not fair that Thorn's opinions can be called "left-wing." I just don't think anyone ought to claim that on Wikipedia as "Thorn is left-wing," but instead "Source X claims Thorn is left-wing."

I'm also unsure about the characterisation of his YouTube videos as "art." Philosophy Tube is comparable to a dramatised and filmed newspaper column: both consist of one person discussing a topic while attempting to entertain with the discussion. While that certainly necessitates artistic endeavours in the case of Philosophy Tube, is the work itself really subject to the characterisation "art"? Unless newspaper columns are also treated as art, in which case, fair enough.

Thanks for discussing! 217.116.228.10 (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the polite discussion. I understand your perspective, but I'm afraid "many sources have characterised ..." is not really how we do things on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not based on "fact" or "truth", but on a particular body of secondary and occasionally primary source literature. To that end, we have lots of bespoke notions like "verifiability" and "reliable sources" and "notability" which are much more specific than the common English words or phrases, but summarise our approach to building an encyclopedia—a tertiary source with no original thought. I understand that this is strange news to even most long-term readers, and I think we have made many failings in educating the public as to our purpose, so that they can engage in proper critical thinking and media literacy when reading our website.

But anyway, this is what we are, and as such we do not need something to be "true", but "verifiable"—that is, if reliable sources have consensus in an idea then we repeat that idea, and otherwise we don't (we report mixed perspectives if we find them in RSes). When we say "X is true", it should always be implicit that we are really saying "The body of sources we regard as reliable have, overall, assessed X as 'true'". Readers should look at the sources of an article to find out what we are regarding as reliable (and can maybe even infer what we regard as unreliable).

No doubt the founding ideas of Wikipedia would make an interesting topic for a Philosophy Tube video, but I'll recommend you one that does exist for the question of whether his work is art: "YouTube: Art or Reality?" I'm not a world expert, but I believe Thorn characterises his work as "art". Reliable sources also discuss its aesthetics, message, filming style etc. in the way that other audiovisual works of art are analysed. Nonetheless, for our purposes it's some sort of media, rather than a base object or event in the real world (such as a company or a referendum), so for the purposes I meant above perhaps I should have used a more general phrase like "piece of media", as my argument did not quite require the full specificity of the videos as "art".

Your comment about Bush and an Overton window is a common one—these are arguments that are not for us to engage in, but the reliable sources to. If the editorial team of a newspaper with stringent fact-checking policies calls a person's content "left-wing", then they have done the work for us. In many ways, learning to edit Wikipedia is learning to "write without a voice", to just be a vehicle for the body of literature we identify as "reliable" and "significant". This approach has many flaws, but it has allowed us to create a great volume of content which is widely read and sought out by people around the world, while maintaining at least some positive respect and reputation. In my opinion (not shared by all editors), we are not politically or philosophically neutral (I would argue no such thing exists), but take the political stance in the middle of the organisations we regard as reliable.

Thanks for reading this carefully and I look forward to your reply. — Bilorv (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the courtesy ping at Me to We, though I don't think I need to reinsert any content. I wasn't sure what the game of the now-blocked editor was, but they were definitely editing in a suspect way and so kudos to you for the intervention. Best. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: great, thanks for clearing that up! — Bilorv (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

For being the voice of reason and apparently one of the only people to understand that our duty as editors isn't to assuage the feelings of other editors in terms of content, but provide a summary of what independent reliable sources say for readers. Praxidicae (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This is for all of the Community episode articles you've written over the past few months, which recently allowed every episode of the show to have its own article (and not just as stubs – they're all properly done). I tried to help with a few articles, but even when I slowed down, you kept at it and finished the task. Your work is greatly appreciated. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, RunningTiger123! I think you're underselling your own contributions—it's an accomplishment of both of us that the set is now complete. — Bilorv (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

WE Charity

So what I did was right, but instead of simply replacing the link, I leave it as it is and add an archive instead? TheKing'sMongrelSon (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@TheKing'sMongrelSon: thanks for the message! Yes, we like to include the original link even if we add an archive link. To archive all references in a page automatically, you can go to View history -> Fix dead links and then (maybe needing to log in or grant access at some point) you should see an interface entitled "Analyze a page", where you can click the checkbox for "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)" and press "Analyze". — Bilorv (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's a good thing there's a button for it, because I'm not great at wikicode... TheKing'sMongrelSon (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

NYPOST as unreliable source on WP...

...in regards to your revert I can not see how it relates to article that is mere non-political reporting that was problematic in NYPOST: "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. Editors consider the New York Post more reliable in the period before it changed ownership in 1976, and particularly unreliable for coverage involving the NYC police."

...also I wanted to place another link, to do it easily as there is no functional global whitelist.

This is also very far from useful PR and has no impact to major company like they are.

Zblace (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Zblace but a blog post by Pornhub would not show due weight for this content, because it is a promotional campaign by the company. Wikipedia is not a place to report promotional campaigns unless they have been covered by reliable sources. NYPost is marked Generally unreliable at WP:RSP with the descriptors: generally unreliable for factual reporting ... editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. This applies to all subject areas, not just politics (though it is particularly poor for politics). — Bilorv (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Release date

Is it actually the norm to wait until a film has a release date for it to become an article on Wikipedia? I thought it was only necessary that a film finished production and passed WP:GNG. Anyway, my point is, I don't think it was fair to decline this draft for Distant. Horacio Vara (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Horacio Vara and thank you for the message. I'm seeing only routine coverage (WP:ROUTINE), which is not enough for GNG, and without a release date and in an pandemic where much of the entertainment industry is subject to uncertainty, I read this as a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Your two options are to wait until there is further coverage or to submit it again for another reviewer opinion. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I don't see how this is a "violation of WP:CRYSTAL". The film has coverage of when actors were cast, when filming began, and when filming concluded. That alone is enough to pass WP:GNG. The only instances where films fall under WP:CRYSTAL is when they're in development, or have just begun filming. Horacio Vara (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but coverage of actors being cast and filming is routine, at least to some degree. The article is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL if you accept the premises that the article does not currently meet GNG, because the coverage is routine, and that CRYSTAL prohibits articles on content which will only be notable if a future event takes place (the film's release). You do not have to accept these premises, but this is an explanation of my position. I hope this makes sense. — Bilorv (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Bilorv: Ok, let's take a look at WP:CRYSTAL. Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Is Distant notable? Yes. Will it be released? With filming having concluded, and Amblin Entertainment (a major production company) producing, yes. Is the article a predetermined list? No. Does this article present original research? No, there are multiple secondary sources on the film. Finally, could the film be considered a "rumor"? No, it's already complete. With this in mind, the Distant draft violates exactly zero things in WP:CRYSTAL, so, because of this, it should be moved into mainspace. Horacio Vara (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Question?

Hi, I am currently working on My Love from the Star to take it for GAN. I have already submitted a request at Wikiproject: Guild of Copy Editors for copy editing. The mentioned article doesn't have episode(s) list. As it was a concern at the earlier assessment; my question is that does a Television article compulsorily need an episode list or the synopsis/plot section is suffice. Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 03:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi -ink&fables and thanks for the question. MOS:TVPLOT says:

For main series articles, plot summaries of no more than 200 words per episode should ideally be presented in a table using {{Episode table}} and {{Episode list}} (such as State of Affairs). If appropriate, these articles could instead include a prose plot summary of no more than 500 words per season (such as Scouted) instead of an episode table, but an article should not have both an episode table and a prose summary.

In this case, the article does have a plose plot summary, so it definitely shouldn't have an episode table as well. You could say that this guideline says it is better to have an episode table instead where a show is easy to give episode-by-episode breakdowns (e.g. if episodes have standalone stories, or the events happen in chronological order). But personally, I would be happy as a GA reviewer for the article to have just a prose summary, not an episode table (but also happy if there was an episode table and no prose summary).

This is just my interpretation—those editors all seemed to favour an episode table but didn't really give a reason, so I would need to hear more from them to understand their opinions. You could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television for further advice, because I can only give you my opinion, not necessarily what the WikiProject as a whole would usually do.

Hope this is helpful! — Bilorv (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Bilorv for answering my question. I will surely ask the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, if I feel it is needed. -ink&fables «talk» 17:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm under a one-way IBAN at the moment, but I'm chuffed to be mentioned. :) Newimpartial (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about the mistake Newimpartial. Don't want to tempt anyone to break an IBAN but I either didn't know about this one or it's the fault of my very short-term memory when it comes to drama. — Bilorv (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It was kind of a stealth iban, involving one Admin, the complainant and one interloper. I may appeal it eventually, but I do find it helps me to slap my own hand, and others inevitably step in for what needs to be done. I don't know whether you remember the initial interaction that long proceeded the ban, just before your comment here in the page history, but that was far beyond my threshold for drama. Newimpartial (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

I documented a disturbing fact in the article you brought to a good level of quality that you yourself described at the good article review as a topic that is very disturbing: Talk:GirlsDoPorn/GA1. I didn't format the source exactly like you have, but perhaps you'll appreciate the addition. Kind regards. Biosthmors (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Biosthmors: really saddening news, but cheers for the edit—it's very helpful. I've tidied it a little. — Bilorv (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping me improve the article! once the marking is done I will edit the changes you recommended SydStudent (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@SydStudent: no problem, good to hear the comments are useful! — Bilorv (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Very helpful! also Im grateful for your looking at my references. I spent about 7 weeks accumulating those hahah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SydStudent (talk • contribs) 17:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:The Chronicles (2020 film)

Greetings, Sir. I intended asking you this: How does one add a tag to an article like this? Thanks. Kambai Akau (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kambai Akau, I'm afraid I don't understand the question. Tag in what way? There are lots of different types of tags with different purposes. — Bilorv (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I created the article, Draft:The Chronicles (2020 film) initially, during the WikiProject:AfroCine contest. If I am to tag it with the contest's link, where could be the proper place to place the tag? Thanks. Kambai Akau (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kambai Akau: I've added a comment at the draft page with a link to this contest. Is this the kind of tag you were thinking of? Some WikiProject drives have dedicated templates you can place on the talk page to provide a link, like {{WIR-173}} (click it to see), but this AfroCine Contest doesn't appear to have one. — Bilorv (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah! Okay, no problems, sir. I will try improving it in some other way over time. I indeed appreciate. Kambai Akau (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Note

Considering recent events I found out that Gnu was in my notes as a potential sock for a while, but I've not had the time to investigate recent edits. In case it could be helpful, —PaleoNeonate – 19:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: You are welcome to email me to continue this conversation but without further evidence I don't think I'll find this helpful. — Bilorv (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Beyond Order

Thank you for the message on my talk page. I am here to inform you I have rverted what you did. The reason I reverted to a revision before your one is because I think Vice is not considered a reliable source. Can you please just keep this page up, it is doing no harm, in fact it is helpful. I don't understand why people want to take it down so much. The PRH story must've created a dozen articles or so. If that is not notability, I don't know what is. It now meets WP:BOOK very well. Many books have pages about them that have not been published.

In an unrealated note, I appreciate you backing me up at Talk:White privilege, thank you. Kind regards J.Turner99 (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@J.Turner99: It's not my choice to make. Name a source in the article which has been published since the conclusion of the Articles for Deletion discussion. My understanding is that there isn't one, and hence you are just edit warring to overturn a consensus established by eight different people. Is this the message you want to send to them of how you feel about their considered contributions to the discussion (which you can recognize without agreeing with their opinions)?

As for Vice, if you don't like it then you shouldn't be quoting it, particularly without attribution, and then you'll also have to agree that the Vice and Guardian sources don't contribute towards notability. But part of what makes a publication reliable is its standing amongst reliable sources and the Guardian article that you did believe is reliable points you to this Vice article and quotes and uses it heavily, lending it credibility.

If you revert to restore the article a third time then I will begin escalating this and that could be quite unpleasant for both of us—I don't like causing drama; I like improving an encyclopedia. I am very concerned by this edit, because it gives me pause in my current assumption that you are here to work constructively as part of a community. I do not see how you could make that edit in good faith. Editing Wikipedia will involve compromises that you find highly unfair and morally objectionable. You are at a crossroads where the choice is to let this stand and understand that in the long run, nothing is lost by storing your edits for a few short months, or to waste a lot of people's time (including your own) to be left with no progress except a sour taste in your mouth. — Bilorv (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv: That is one from two weeks ago. But this does not matter. The PRH protests were not discussed at all during the discussion, these portests add notability to the book. You don't have to hold any personal responsiblity if you turn you blind eye in this case—it's wikipedia, not murder. I appreciate your assiduity but feel my points are reasonable to reinstate the article. Of course I will allow you to respond and will not reinstate the article. I would really appreciate your support in contrast to what you are currently doing. --J.Turner99 (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Hmm, odd that I missed this one given that I read it. One opinion piece does not substantially change things though. The PRH Canada coverage was released by the end of the discussion. I'm not going to turn a blind eye to anything. Your comments are very worrying with regard to Wikipedia's principles of reaching compromise and consensus, and maintaining this even when you do not agree with the outcome. If you do not respect eight people's opinions then why should I respect one person's? If the situation had changed substantially then the appropriate thing would be to hold a wider discussion rather than repeatedly undoing others' actions and let somebody else overturn the redirect if consensus was reached. — Bilorv (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I admit that removing the discussion banner was a bit below the belt. My main argument is that the people who voted for a redirect did so before the PRH coverage occured. Also it is worth saying that the wiki article it self did not mention it at all at the time. Another point is that they mostly voted on the basis that it does not meet WP:BOOK, it now does. I have two questions for you: How exactly would one start a new discussion? How do you type an em dash without copying and pasting? --J.Turner99 (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand your argument, but I don't agree. Articles for Deletion discussions focus on sources that exist rather than the sources present in an article and discussion participants will often come back and leave another comment if the situation changes significantly; when you read each comment, do you really think that the sources about PRH Canada protests address all of the given participants' concerns? I can see at least four participants raising at least one argument which has not materially changed. I am confident that a discussion begun now will end with the same conclusion, but of course I am not always correct. I reckon you would be best to begin a discussion at Talk:Jordan Peterson to establish consensus, if you insist on this, but there are many ways to skin a cat.

As for the em dash, in the default wikitext editor you should see a bar below the text field beginning "Insert" and continuing with a number of symbols, one of which is an em dash. Pressing it inserts one into wikitext where the cursor is. — Bilorv (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance—J.Turner99 (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

RE: Draft:Ed Brown (Texas politician)

Per WP:NPOL, US politicians elected to state legislatures are considered notable. Just a heads up since you're from the UK and declined this draft. Regardless, keep up the good work! Curbon7 (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Curbon7: Ugh, should have read it all more closely. I read the draft thinking the person was like a local council person and NPOL not connecting the "state/province" to "legislative". Will take more care in future. Thanks for the comment! — Bilorv (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Frail State of Mind

Hey there. First off, always glad to meet a fellow 1975 fan! Secondly, thank you for reviewing "Frail State of Mind". Your comments were helpful and really made the article shine. I've made all the changes you've suggested. If there's anything else you need me to complete, please don't hesitate to let me know. I look forward to working together more in the future! Cheers. Giacobbe ^talk 01:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@(CA)Giacobbe: absolutely, I did NOACF's "The 1975" a while back and it's good to see some more expansion on this album. A few small points at the GA review and then this should be good to go. — Bilorv (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Why my draft of book Why does a man rape is declined?

They don't show only mention if you clearly read the Policy Times article or Diverge Media, it clearly shows about book. Like in the policy times article it talks about the book and says that ‘Why Does A Man Rape?’; Uncovering the Dark Truths behind the Heinous Act of Rape. Moreover, other articles also talk about the book it's just they have mentioned the author in the beginning and then they have talked about the book but that doesn't mean it is only a mention. In addition, every article shows that what is inside the book and why the author has written it like "This book addresses some taboo and controversial issues related to rape. Why do people rape? Who to blame for rapes? Is rape confined to the human race? Is this new in this generation or are there any references to such incidents in our history? Such questions are answered fluently in his book, 'Why does Man rape'. Kindly tell me your review on this so that I can resubmit it

Rajveer90 (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rajveer90 and thank you for the questions! Have you noticed the comment by the other reviewer, sources given are mainly or exclusively reprints of press releases? I didn't actually read the comment until I had evaluated the sources but I found myself coming to a similar conclusion. The Times source is a reprint of IssueWire, a press release. Other sources are similar. These do not have the independence from the subject necessary that is necessary to contribute towards notability (recall: sources need to be published, reliable, secondary, independent and have significant coverage). WP:NBOOK is most commonly met by showing two book reviews in reliable sources with wide circulation. Bestseller lists can count in place of this, but you should cite those bestseller lists directly. I'm also concerned that the sources are not reliable. Anything that looks like a blog (and The Times does to me, but I'm not a subject expert) is not good. I'd be looking for something on the quality of Times of India or The Indian Express, whether a review or a bestseller list—anything significantly less well-known is probably not good enough for Wikipedia. Not all books are notable and so it may be that there's no way we can have an article on this book. Let me know if you have any further questions! — Bilorv (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Unaware that the user had asked here, I answered them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem, your answer is much appreciated. Rajveer90, I agree with everything that Cyphoidbomb has written, and they make some good points that I did not. — Bilorv (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Bilorv. We all are working to make Wikipedia better. One quick question if I add the references from Times of India, Hindustan Times, Daily Hunt, or The Indian Saga then that would work? And one more thing sources should be directly related to a book or it can be the author's interview where he talked about the book in the interview. Kindly give me more insight on this so that I can resubmit it.

Rajveer90 (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft improved and ready for review

Hi, Bilorv.. Could you please take a look at my draft again for a review.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:XSET

I had made changes to it initially but have no idea why they were reverted.. I have fixed it now and I believe it's ready for another review. Thanks! Mondayudowong (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)