User talk:Bilorv

Wikipedia:Peer review/Veerapandiya Kattabomman (film)/archive2

Hello Bilorv. Kailash29792 and I have listed this article about a 1959 cult classic film in Tamil cinema for peer reviewing with the intention of preparing it for FAC and subsequently taking it to FA. I noticed your comments at Michelle Williams' and Call Me by Your Name's FACs and I was hoping your constructive comments at the PR would be deeply appreciated. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 05:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ssven2: Hi! I'm sorry, but I'm very busy at the moment so I don't have time to give the article a review. Drop me a message if you nominate it at FAC and hopefully I'll be able to look at it then. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Reverted my edit

Can i ask why ? I have not notice anything wronge , sam spurces as the main article, wich is an internet meme already based on jokes and some links that one , could say unreliable ( but you disn't delete any of them ) but you keep revert my edit unreasonably it seems. I guess you just don't like my subject for a reason , further, it was only you that found my sources unreliable , the biggest tabloids in Europe .. In summary , first, was the lack of 'edit summary' , then no reliable sources ... at last you reverted once more, prompting me to talk here , why ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialgroover (talk • contribs) 21:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Socialgroover and welcome to Wikipedia! There are a few problems with the content you added—indeed some of the sources are unreliable (e.g. the lelo page is a blog; dictionary.com is not a reliable source). Also, there's a problem with its wording. But my main problem was that you undid another user's edit without explaining why or attempting to initiate discussion. Thanks for messaging me here, but this discussion is better had on the talk page of the article i.e. Talk:Steak and Blowjob Day, where the editor who originally reverted can also participate. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 04:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Bilorv, At the end, you deleted my edit because you felt offended (why?) by the fact i re-reverted ( my right ) the edit as i had to since my reference was what is already well known and makes the article better indeed.Still you reverted it WP:DONTREVERT. I could provide another 100 links at least , most of them reliable,(if they are out of your knowledge makes them unreliable?) but going in an edit war would indicate a problematic personality from me i guess.See, i am not someone wtih 11000 edits in 5 years, i love eating to!I just wanted to provide some justice only, and that's because the main article has nothing but jokes and bold statements from some journalists and not anything official, giving the wrong message to young people.But my contribution was evaluated negatively, according to the limited knowledge or preferences of a member, a feminist one , go figure.. Like it ot not C&C day IS a thing, it's everywhere and it's going to stay and become big i believe. And that makes dictionary.com and LELO more reliable source than Wikipedia for the time being thanks to you.Oh, www.news.de is widely read source. I must say that i agree with other people by saying that my first attempt to edit, something that had nothing false actually, was rather frustrating.Just search and you will be surprised by the number of people that feel the same way for the same reason.. Some editors act like the owners of Wikipedia, and they might be.But if so, it becomes a problematic procedure. Wikipedia must stay reliable and expandable.And this requires new editors.New people.From everywhere. Btw, if you 'll try block me , don't bother , not in a mood to involve anymore ..was an amazing job from you on this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialgroover (talk • contribs) 16:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you want me to do. For what it's worth, I have neither the power nor the desire to block you. I've initiated a conversation on the article's talk page; you can comment there about why you think the text should be included. (In talk page discussions, you can sign your post by ending them with the code: ~~~~.) — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 16:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Dressed to Kill

Hi Bilorv,

I saw your comment in the RfC on Dressed to Kill and thought you might be interested in my proposed next steps. I saw that all the "no" responses focused not on the question I presented in the RfC but rather the list of supporting studies and opinions. I reviewed my concerns with the closer of the RfC and we thought it would be a good idea to start a new RfC with the actual proposed book summary content to make it easier for editors to comment. I am thinking the following would be a good overview to propose in the RfC. Because you were the only other editor to truly understand the question, I thought it might be good to get your opinion on this proposal before I start the RfC in case you have other ideas.

In Dressed to Kill, the authors Singer and Grismaijer theorize that wearing a tight bra for long hours daily can contribute to breast cancer risk due to restrictions of lymphatic flow caused by the bra. They discuss the lymphatic system and how lymph circulation can be hampered by tight bras, and describe in detail the 1991-93 US Bra and Breast Cancer Study they conducted on women which showed that the longer and tighter a bra is worn, the higher the risk of developing breast cancer. In the book's 2018 Second Edition, the authors also give a history of past recognition of the bra-cancer link by doctors and bra makers, give examples of new bra designs for less constrictive bras that are based on their theory and which credit Dressed to Kill in their patents, and describe the resistance they have experienced from the medical industry to this theory and the possible reasons for that resistance. In addition to their own work, they also cited five other peer-reviewed studies, including one meta-analysis, which have found a significant link between bra usage and breast cancer incidence. Singer and Grismaijer also suggest that constriction from bras is the leading cause of breast pain and cysts.

The authors also discussed one particular 2014 study by Lu Chen, et al., at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, which is the only study to date that has found no correlation between bra-wearing and breast cancer risk. However, the authors of that study noted the study’s limitation of excluding bra-free women, and therefore of having no bra-free control group for comparison. Singer and Grismaijer propose that lacking a bra-free control group from the study would be like examining lung cancer among smokers without a non-smoking control group for comparison, making any conclusions unreliable.

Your thoughts on this proposed content would be appreciated. § Music Sorter § (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Music Sorter, and thanks for the message. I'm afraid the text you propose still has some major concerns:

• In the first sentence, replace "theorize" with "claim". The word "theory" in science is used to describe a fully formulated system which explains all available evidence, but Singer and Grismaijer's claims are not accepted by scientists.
• Similarly, we need to establish provenance. For instance, "they posit that lymph circulation...". This language is needed throughout the paragraphs.
• As the current article notes, their 1991-93 study had methodological flaws and is not peer reviewed, so we can't say it "showed" anything, but instead we should simply state what the authors claim.
• The second paragraph begins with a misconception. I assume you believe the Lu Chen study is the only one to have found no correlation because the book authors claim so. If so, this claim is false. Note the "Scientific reception" section of the current article. We can say that "The authors also discussed a 2014 study ... which they incorrectly claim is the only study to have found no correlation." The paragraph also gives excessive weight to 'debunking' the study; we could simply replace everything from the second sentence onwards with "The authors describe limitations of the study."

Once these problems are sorted, it might still be worth getting another opinion on the text before starting the RfC. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the reply, Bilorv. I think I followed all your comments on the first paragraph and I have prepared this updated proposal for your consideration. For the second paragraph, I'm not sure I follow your proposal. The current "Scientific Reception" section only lists one study (the Hutch Study) to have found no correlation between bras and breast cancer which focused on that link. The 2000 UK study entry contains cherry-picked content from the actual 2000 UK study evidence. I looked at all the data for the UK study myself and did try to update that section previously (I'll work on that in a future update). The study itself looked at the link between bras and breast pain and showed a positive link. It did not conclude there was no link between bras and breast cancer. As that entry stands now, the reader would believe the study disproved the link, but in reality the study never claimed to make a link between bras and breast cancer either way. All the rest of that section is opinion from experts. When I first started looking at this article, I tried to find additional studies on either side of the argument, but to date I have only found this one Hutch study that drew any conclusion of no link. I read that study as well and the authors do state they did not include a control group. In my understanding of scientific research, lacking a control group can make a study completely invalid, so it seems important to include that reference from the study organizers.

In Dressed to Kill, the authors Singer and Grismaijer conclude that wearing a tight bra for long hours daily can contribute to breast cancer risk by impairing lymphatic circulation in the breasts due to constriction, creating mild, chronic breast lymphedema that can cause breast pain, cysts, and cancer. They discuss the lymphatic system and how lymph circulation can be hampered by tight bras, and describe in detail their 1991-93 US Bra and Breast Cancer Study conducted on nearly 5,000 women, about half of whom had had breast cancer. The authors claim the results suggest that the longer and tighter a bra is worn, the higher the risk of developing breast cancer. In the book's 2018 Second Edition, the authors also give a history of past recognition of the bra-cancer link by doctors and bra makers dating back to the 1930s, and give examples of patents for new bra designs for less constrictive bras based on their research and book and which claim to be less harmful to the lymphatic system. They also try to explain the reasons why the medical industry insists that the bra-cancer link is a myth with no scientific evidence or basis. In addition to their own work, the authors cite five recent peer-reviewed studies, including one meta-analysis, which have found a significant link between bra usage and breast cancer incidence. The authors argue that women should be told about this potential cause of breast cancer, and call for more research.

The authors also discussed one particular 2014 study by Lu Chen, et al., at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, which Singer and Grismaijer claim is the only study to date that has found no correlation between bra-wearing and breast cancer risk. However, the authors of that study noted the study’s limitation of excluding bra-free women, and therefore of having no bra-free control group for comparison. Singer and Grismaijer propose that lacking a bra-free control group from the study would be like examining lung cancer among smokers without a non-smoking control group for comparison, making any conclusions unreliable.

Let me know if you think it needs additional adjustments before I move to the next step. Your feedback is sincerely appreciated. § Music Sorter § (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Music Sorter: With regards to studies, it seems I was wrong with my comments, and I see you've addressed this with the addition of "... which Singer and Grismaijer claim ..." I'm still a little bit concerned about some of the wording; I propose the following:

In Dressed to Kill, the authors Singer and Grismaijer claim that wearing a tight bra for long hours daily can contribute to breast cancer risk by impairing lymphatic circulation in the breasts due to constriction, creating mild, chronic breast lymphedema that can cause breast pain, cysts, and cancer. They write that lymph circulation can be hampered by tight bras, and describe in detail a survey which they claim to have conducted in 1991-93 on nearly 5,000 women, about half of whom had had breast cancer. The authors conclude that the longer and tighter a bra is worn, the higher the risk of developing breast cancer. In the book's 2018 Second Edition, the authors also give a history of past medical consensus on a bra-cancer link and give examples of patents for less constrictive bras which were based on their book. They also give explanations for why they believe the medical consensus is that there is no correlation between bra-wearing and cancer. In addition to their own work, the authors cite five recent peer-reviewed studies, including one meta-analysis, which report a significant link between bra usage and breast cancer incidence. The authors argue that women should be told about this potential cause of breast cancer, and call for more research. Singer and Grismaijer also discuss one particular 2014 study by Lu Chen, et al., at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, which they claim is the only study that has found no correlation between bra-wearing and breast cancer risk. They describe limitations of the study.

Thanks! — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Bilorv, I think we are almost there. I wanted to mention in case you were not aware that the limitation of the Hutchinson study actually came from Lu Chen, the study author. He noted that the study excluded women who did not wear a bra. Since this study is typically cited as proof that there is no link between bras and breast cancer, it seems poignant to note that detail here. If I studied 1000 people who all smoked cigarettes, wouldn't I find some who show no lung cancer? Would I then conclude because some people smoke yet have no lung cancer than smoking does not cause lung cancer? I don't think so, but the Hutchinson study seems to do that here. My proposal was to include the Lu Chen comment that he had no bra-free women and that Singer and Grismaijer noted that exclusion in the study is significant in their opinion. The way it is worded now, it seems the study didn't say there were limitations and only Singer and Grismaijer thought there was a limitation. If you are interested, see the last paragraph of the study here. Thanks so much for your great help on this. § Music Sorter § (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed "supposed" from the last sentence. Your personal commentary is incorrect as Singer and Grismaijer claim that wearing a bra for longer hours increases the risk of breast cancer, but the study's independent variable is the number of hours for which women wore a bra. It's like studying a group of people who smoke 10 times per day and a group who smoke 60 times per day; because there's a correlation between smoking and lung cancer, we would see higher rates of lung cancer in the latter group. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for my gap in response. My real life got in the way of getting back to this. I accept your adjustments and I will set up the RFC using this last proposed summary. New RfC link § Music Sorter § (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Bilorv. I'm just posting to let you know that List of awards and nominations received by Black Mirror – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for December 28. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Giants2008: thanks for the blurb! It looks excellent. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 22:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

San Junipero scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the San Junipero article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 20, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 20, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Also pinging Masem. We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA.

I note that this may possibly be rescheduled for December. When you know, let me and Wehwalt know and we'll sort it out Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Having said that, the message above this means that we could be running two related articles on the same day, which is problematic. Let's see what happens first Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Do you know what, it genuinely hadn't occurred to me that the list's TFL date is the same as the potential release date. That's quite a coincidence. If having the TFA and TFL match is a problem then I'm happy to leave the TFA on January 20. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 16:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't have mentioned it, but there was a kerfuffle recently when a FA and FL for the same person were both scheduled for her birthday. Probably better to leave as is in the circumstances, letting @Wehwalt: know as December coord. Cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Precious

Black Mirror

Thank you for quality articles around Black Mirror, such as San Junipero, List of awards and nominations received by Black Mirror and Metalhead (Black Mirror), for women biographies, - keyboard, flute and chess player, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: thanks so much! — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

check my talk page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nuksanhai#Schools

Nuksanhai (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to WP:TV discussion

You are invited to a WP:TV discussion about Pigsonthewing and his actions on the infoboxes. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Cambodia New Year

Hi. This and Khmer New Year are both on my watchlist to look for socks. If I didn't know the history, I would've simply declined the draft as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Bandersnatch

Some of the content, such as the interactive episode bit, the cast and the tenses is currently WP:CRYSTAL. I wrote this and I'm telling you: the sourcing isn't appropriate until the episode is released.
— [1]

The solution for this is to never source from speculation. It's easy to root out that paraphrased content and keep the big picture, which is confirmed: the cast, the background, the trailer, the release info. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 20:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: I'm not sourcing anything from speculation because I didn't add anything to a mainspace article. The cast are not confirmed. People are working out who they are from the trailer, which is original research. Similar things are happening with the "choose-your-own-adventure" stuff and Slade as the director. These are unverifiable and yet obviously correct; unsuitable for Wikipedia today, but will be proven to be appropriate tomorrow. I plan to uncomment the article tomorrow, once it is verifiable from the primary source of the film itself. By uncommenting the article, you are the one introducing OR and bad sourcing. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

...analyzing trailers is part of the expert "original research" that journalists are hired to do. Citing WP:OR pejoratively is only for when other Wikipedia editors are making their own journalistic claims without backing from reliable sources. Your reverts are effectively holding the article space hostage when there are plenty of non-speculative reliable sources to cite today. You can cut down the content that never belonged and leave a shell for other editors to edit. If necessary, always possible to restore text from the page history. czar 20:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Professional journalists have variously claimed that series 5 of Black Mirror will be released in 2018, that early series aired on the BBC, that Bandersnatch will be dropped alongside the rest of the series, that White Christmas was a series 2 episode, that every episode is set in the same universe etc. I saw a source today which accidentally said "Tuesday" instead of "Thursday", which would have actually changed a whole lot if I had taken it at face value. These aren't fringe sources or journalists who aren't experienced in the area, but television critics on major websites. We still can't trust them. Journalists copy information from Wikipedia and reddit and we need to keep their clickbait claims at arm's length, such as in the situation of them claiming who the cast are from the trailer. I don't believe for a second that every journalist who wrote about this instantly recognised the very obscure actor Asim Chaudhry (heck, I've seen him on Taskmaster and I didn't recognise him).

I am not certain that the topic is notable yet, as its current coverage could be considered WP:ROUTINE. This will change the instant the episode drops, and the media embargo lifts allowing critical reviews to flood in. If you are convinced of notability already, I can comment out just the portions which are original research and changes tenses from present to future, but personally I don't think that level of effort is necessary to benefit readers in an 11 hour period.

I did the same thing on USS Callister last year. The reason is to save time so that tomorrow, readers and editors can see and collect information as fast as possible. I'm not trying to hold anything hostage. You are free to add sourced content—or even your own inferences about what the episode will be about—inside the hidden comment today. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 21:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am convinced of its standalone notability and 11-hour benefit, given the search volume. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 22:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: Sorry, I missed your reply by a whisker. Thanks for uncommenting. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 03:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

With a trailer out, and third party sources making statements who stars, that's fair info to include. --Masem (t) 04:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

This simply isn't a counterargument to my point above that journalists often make mistakes during speculation like this. Only the credits themselves are a reliable source for this (though of course it would be different if this were like a standard film in promotion and distribution style). Anyway, the episode is out now so it no longer matters. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 08:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Bandersnatch full runtime

Hey, saw you removed my edit as you said there is 150 minutes max for Bandersnatch. The BBFC viewed 312 minutes and having checked they said it was all accessible footage and not counting different viewings, meaning 312 minutes is correct for entirety of available footage created. Check out the tweet - https://twitter.com/BBFC/status/1081165765313744896?s=07 So can we add the total back in, or somewhere in article? :) Heimatchen (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Heimatchen: thanks for the message. This source says there are 150 minutes of footage: specifically, At the heart of the episode are two-and-a-half hours of footage divided into 250 segments. It's unclear how the BBFC got the 312 minutes runtime—perhaps it includes footage that was cut from the final edit, or does include some duplicated scenes. Perhaps this is worth discussion at Talk:Black Mirror: Bandersnatch, because it's not a very clear cut situation, but my first instinct is to discount the BBFC tweet altogether as a less reliable source than interviews with the people who worked on the film. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• I just saw this message, thought I'd contribute. I've read/seen some of the interviews with Poulter/Whitehead/Annabel Jones. They all give different runtimes, from Poulter's estimate of "over 3 hours" to Whitehead's "4 hours" to Jones' "something like 5 hours" worth of footage. Maybe it should be noted that some scenes which may appear identical were recorded many times and do slightly differ depending on which choices you've already made? So there is actually a lot of footage. Kingsif (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a good point. I was thinking that a note in the article might be the solution to this – roughly "Though most sources give 150 minutes as the total time, various figures of 4 hours and 312 minutes have been reported." I still believe the 150 minute figure is correct, but it doesn't explain why 312 minutes of footage were submitted to the Korean media board, or why Whitehead thought they did 4 hours of footage plus stuff that was cut. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 16:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, maybe there's someone out there interested in timing everything as they watch it, but that is certainly not me. Kingsif (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, in fact I am planning to (in a few months) watch all the segments in one go at some point, and will time it. In the long term I hope more sources will come out to clarify this, but in the short term if anyone wants to add a note then that would be good. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Help with FAC

• Hello again! I was wondering if you could help me with my current FAC? I understand if you do not have time or are not interested though; just wanted to ask. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: Sorry but I don't think I'll have time at the moment. Hope you have a good weekend! — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 03:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    • No worries, thank you for the prompt response! The article has already received three supports, an image review, and a source review so it may already be ready for promotion anyway (I have pinged the FAC coordinators about it). I am looking forward to working with you again in the future. Have a good one! Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

European Super League

Well I’ve been sat on the naughty-step since 22 December, so I spent 20 days manually amending ‘European Super League’ to ‘Super League’, and I’ve noticed a few things… my AutoWikiBrowser (AWB) changes affected “only” 1317 articles, yet I’ve had to manually amended nearly 3000 articles, which means that approximately 1700 articles, i.e. more than I amended with AWB, were actually already “incorrect”.

Interestingly, Super League’s registered company name is Super League (Europe) Ltd. the CEO is a Frenchman; Bernard Guasch, who is also the chairman of the French club; Catalans Dragons, so actually quite European after all… I expect all hell will break loose if the Canadian club Toronto Wolfpack ever gain promotion to Super League.

I had to expend 50-hours to amend the 3000 articles that could have been amended in 50-minutes by someone with AWB access… but every cloud has a silver lining… as a result of my change from, e.g. ‘he played in Super League’ to ‘he played in the European Super League’, I have now manually revised this to the more semantically pleasing ‘he played in the Super League’.

I also discovered (and corrected) a raft of biography articles about Greek and Turkish association footballers who actually play in the Superleague Greece or Süper Lig, not the incorrectly linked Super League.

As well as discovering tranche of woefully out-of-date rugby league biography articles from the post-1996 Super League era… not articles initiated by me obviously… as I concentrate on initiating pre-Super League rugby league biography articles, articles that I have continue to enhance over the last decade… I guess I’d best get on with correcting these out-of-date articles, as there’s nobody else doing it. DynamoDegsy (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@DynamoDegsy: Thanks for all your recent work! Good to see you've been making other corrections about the place as you go. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 14:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

GA nom: Be Right Back

Hey, just a message to say I've started reviewing Be Right Back - check in soon! Kingsif (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've responded to all of your points. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)