Penelope LeaEdit

If you have a source which gives her year of birth I am quite happy with that. I just dont think we should leave the article without a year. Rathfelder (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: her date of birth is unknown. You've just seen sources that prove it is either 2003 or 2004; and 2005. They cannot all be correct. I created the page saying 2005 based on one source, another person changed it to 2003 based on some other evidence, so I removed it due to inconsistency and then you asserted it was 2004.
We cannot speculatively include guesses based on which source may have got it wrong. I'm extremely concerned by your addition of a birth year based on an age on a particular date ("In 2018 she was 14"), given your number of edits to the site, and gave thought to escalating the situation if you've been making edits like these en masse, but I cannot see any others. The template {{Birth based on age as of date}} works for other situations, but it is not possible here to ascertain a correct birth year, only to perpetuate through citogenesis a possibly wrong one. — Bilorv (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
So you want to tell me you are up for a confrontation? Rathfelder (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
@Rathfelder: let me ask clearly and dispassionately—have you made any edits to pages not including Penelope Lea in which you add a year of birth based only on a source saying "the subject was aged X at time Y"? If the answer is no then there is no remaining issue. If the answer is yes then this is mathematically invalid (if you are 14 at some point in 2018 then you could be born in 2003 or 2004), and we can work out how to proceed to remove or adapt any possibly incorrect information. — Bilorv (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I dont think I have. But I cant say that I regard such edits as terribly significant. Rathfelder (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
@Rathfelder: I'm going to press a bit further, at least in case it comes up in future edits. Do you understand the point I'm making about calendars, where "In 2018, some person was aged 14" does not mean "Some person was born in 2004"? And do you agree that we should not be adding years of birth unless it is definite rather than just possible or likely that a person was born in that year, and so {{Birth based on age as of date}} should be used instead for this purpose? — Bilorv (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I dont agree. We have thousands of historical articles where we dont have a definite date of birth. Rathfelder (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
@Rathfelder: can you point me to an example article where we specify someone's date of birth to more precision than can be verified in sources (e.g. a historical article where a date of birth is not definite, but just guessed at)? — Bilorv (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No shortage of them. Master Gerhard to take one at random. Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @Rathfelder: okay, so the article says "circa 1210". How has that conclusion been arrived at? — Bilorv (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) Per policy, for BLPs, "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources". If the birth year is not included in the article and supported by reliable sources, there should not be a category included stating a birth year. Guessing the birth year when it's not explicitly stated and supported by sources is WP:OR.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Here's another - Ragnar Omtvedt. Sources dont agree when he was born. Rathfelder (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Then the discrepancy should be noted in the article, along with the differing sources (assuming they are of equal reliability). -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a problem that needs correction. I've temporarily removed the date of birth entirely, but Ponyo is completely correct that we could note the discrepancy and avoid categorisation or statement of DOBs as fact. Look at Sean Lock (and see the corresponding talk discussions) for one good resolution (with a date of death). Meanwhile, I'm still interested to hear why "circa 1210" was arrived at for Master Gerhard. — Bilorv (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I dont think we need to take people out of categories because sources dont agree. Editors need to make judgements, and note the differences if they are significant. Rathfelder (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
For BLPs the categories are dictated by the reliably sourced content within the article; they should never imply anything not explicitly stated. That's the policy. For all other biographies, WP:COPDEF applies. How can a birth year be a defining characteristic if its accuracy is in doubt? Category:Year of birth uncertain would seem more appropriate. Regardless, that would be a discussion for the talk page of any such article, not Bilorv's (hijacked, sorry!) talk page.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
It's good to have your opinion, Ponyo, and this is very much on topic. If sources do not agree then categories should not be used, unless there is a clear consensus among sources. We shouldn't be making judgements at all in difficult cases, as there are two simple resolutions to contradictions. The first, as above, is to explain the contradiction. The second is to lower the level of precision e.g. using "circa" or saying "1910s" rather than "1917". Perhaps Rathfelder is saying the same thing in other words. — Bilorv (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I certainly agree that we should use a 10 year category (or maybe a century category for medieval articles) rather than leaving birth unknown - or putting in a contested date without explanation. Rathfelder (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Question from Gshaw9614 (02:24, 11 January 2022)Edit

Hi - I'm trying to submit a company page but it keeps saying it looks too much like an advertisement (the last editor also said CoinDesk isn't a reliable source, which is interesting since it's a news source for cryptocurrency). Would you mind helping me? --Gshaw9614 (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gshaw9614: CoinDesk certainly isn't reliable. Take a look at WP:NCRYPTO and CoinDesk's entry at WP:RSP. Unlike you, I am not being paid to edit Wikipedia, so I cannot help you free the draft from its obvious advertisement intent. We recommend against editing in your own interests, because whether intentionally or not, people are unable to write neutrally about their employer. — Bilorv (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Why Marx Was Right scheduled for TFAEdit

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 8 February 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2022, or to make more comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For coming up with Challenges — that was a truly unique and imaginative idea! — The Most Comfortable Chair 09:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, The Most Comfortable Chair, really glad to see you like it. Impressive to get "Jack of all trades"—I think that one's really hard—and nice to see one of my noms (Remedial Chaos Theory) counted as one of your review credits. — Bilorv (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


Can you further explain your decline here? Is it the quality of the sources? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 00:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@AssumeGoodWraith: many issues. For the draft to be accepted, the topic needs to be notable now, not expected to be notable if the game is released. The sources' reliability strikes me as questionable, but I did not investigate further as even if reliable, they are all routine coverage that provide no substantial information, just speculation, press release information and very basic expected details of the game. This is not the sort of in-depth, substantial coverage needed for notability. Moreover, were the topic notable, at a one-sentence piece of information it would be better off as a sentence in a larger article. — Bilorv (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I was going to make a very short stub with a bunch of sources for others to expand. Guess I'll wait. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 00:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


I saw your call for a quick GA and I responded with Saint Vincent Beer. Bonus: it is still DYK eligible as a 5x expansion -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Guerillero: glad to see it—very quick work! I've added you to User:Bilorv/Challenges#Minimalist. Feel free to add yourself to any future ones. — Bilorv (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Question from CynMTU (17:12, 18 January 2022)Edit

Hi there - I am wondering how my home page got created and you were assigned as my mentor so I can help other newbies get the same thing. Can you remind me how I made this happen? --CynMTU (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@CynMTU: thanks for the question! The mentor and homepage are new features that I believe are only gradually being rolled out to a random selection of new users, so I do not think there is a way to enable it for those people who do not already have it. — Bilorv (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I am fortunate to have it and you! Thanks for the help.CynMTU (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Question from Chijioke Euna Chizoba on Lander University (22:34, 18 January 2022)Edit

Hello --Chijioke Euna Chizoba (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Chijioke Euna Chizoba, and welcome to Wikipedia! Let me know if you have any questions. — Bilorv (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft review of Gohenry appEdit

Hey, thank you for your previous AfC review of I recently added a portion of reliable sources with deep coverage: the Daily Mirror, This is money, The Economist, New York Times (good mentions in 2 stories), etc. I've put them mostly into Overview section. Please review when you have a chance. Best wishes. -- (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes, and they look like they address the lack of notability problem, but the Fintech sources still need to go and the Daily Mirror is not a reliable source. I will leave the review to another person, but it would help if you can make those removals of bad sources and badly sourced information. — Bilorv (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Bilorv thanks for your help. I removed not reliable sources (maybe most of them) and added another reliable as Computer Weekly, another the Guardian and BBC news. -- (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the changes. — Bilorv (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Smile :)Edit

19:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!Edit


[[Facebook:"Figaro452"]] (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Figaro452, and welcome to Wikipedia! — Bilorv (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


  Saludos,! [[Facebook:"Figaro452"]] (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The May PamphletEdit

Hi! I have the same question for you but vice versa. :) Just a heads up that if you're interested in politics-related book articles and have the inclination, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The May Pamphlet/archive1 is open for feedback and reviews. Best wishes, czar 17:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, Czar. Definitely an interesting article. Can't guarantee I'll have the time but I'll make it a priority if I can. — Bilorv (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


Hi Bilorv,

I am just checking if you can review an article I have drafted at Draft:Reunited (TV Series) as you helped me with a previous draft just recently.

Kind Regards Arlene --ArleneHerman (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@ArleneHerman: in general I don't accept requests to skip the queue, but I can say that I'd be very dubious about accepting this one. Upcoming TV series are only notable if they would be significant in television history even if they did not air, per "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". I'm not seeing how this show would be notable if it went unaired—usually we need (inter)national reviews or awards to show notability of a programme. — Bilorv (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Bilorv. I do agree with you on this one just regarding to it still yet to air. So I will let the draft sit here until later. I will look for sources in the mean time. Maybe when it does air, there will be more sources that come to light. Thanks --ArleneHerman (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Yep, there's no issue at all with improving it as a draft and waiting for coverage when it airs, ArleneHerman. — Bilorv (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Question from CynMTU on Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan Technological University (18:26, 24 January 2022)Edit

Hi - I am editing my wikiproject page and am wondering why it doesn't allow me to use the visual editor --CynMTU (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi CynMTU and thanks for the question! To be honest, I'm not sure of the answer. I know Visual Editor has some limitations, and possibly it is not available for pages in the Wikipedia namespace. Perhaps by testing you can see whether it is available in the edit window for any pages beginning "Wikipedia:". You can also take a look at Wikipedia:VisualEditor as a starting point to learn more about it.
If this answer isn't satisfactory (which is fair enough!) then you could try asking at the Teahouse. — Bilorv (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)