User talk:Bonadea/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-commerce_in_India

I have tried to correct a biased opinion presented as a fact in the wikipedia page. The mentioned opinion is unsubstantiated. Visiting the page for the first time a few days ago, I provided inputs regarding the existing companies operating in web hosting domain. It is not a single website I am talking about here, instead mentioning few at the top of my head, out of many service providers in the industry (talking about an industry in India).

I cannot understand why a cited material instead of a biased opinion is being categorized as soapboxing or advertisement repeatedly.

I am new to the rules and proper method / process. So if that has been done incorrectly, please guide me instead of warnings! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.38.63 (talk) 07:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC) The best thing to do would have been to remove the problematic content instead of replacing it with other unsourced content, which was also promotional. I removed most of the paragraph in question since I agree with you that it was written like someone's opinion, and had been lacking sources for at least five years. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 07:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit, it does look proper now. But I have a question, there are atleast 5-10 different companies in the grocery section in online grocery section in India. This same topic also has statements like "Amazon has also entered grocery segment with its Kirana now in Bangalore and is also planning to enter in various other cities like Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai and faces stiff competition with Indian startups." Why should it matter in Indian context / is not a promotion by Amazon affiliated writers? Because Amazon is not the first to start that category, not present in most of the Indian towns for grocery, nor have the highest current revenue (May 2018) in grocery in any of the cities they are in.

I encounter similar statements all over Wikipedia, hugely biased but escaping the attention of contributors. 106.51.38.63 (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Amit

Vijay Shekhar Sharma

Please follow wikipedia policies and stop re-adding templates as you did here.

As per WP:WTRMT, Some neutrality-related templates, such as COI (associated with the conflict of interest guideline) and POV (associated with the neutral point of view policy), strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page), to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, the template can be removed

I hope you will correct your mistake and remove the template. Thanks. --Xzinger (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Nsmutte?

Is the power Nsmutte? Obvious sock but I'm not sure of the master. —SpacemanSpiff 03:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi SpacemanSpiff if you do suspect that specific user of being a sock, I think we will have to open some XFD's which were closed by the editor. This was more like a FYI. Sorry I did not want to butt into the conversation. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: no, I'm sure it's not nsmutte. The disruption is different, and they write differently as well. I agree that it looks like a returning editor but I don't know who it would be. @Adamgerber80: that editor should not be closing XfDs anyway, since WP:NAC makes it clear that nacs should only be done by experienced editors. I reopened two closures - were there more? --bonadea contributions talk 07:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I thought so too, I haven't looked at all the NACs yet but I think there's more than you re-opened, might need a mass reopen, which is what Adamgerber is referring to I think. Looking more at it, it looks like that recent Arbcom candidate who was community banned during the election process. **Den Jenk ** or some weird ass name. Maybe a CU will get to look at it sooner rather than later, it's just a waste of community time.—SpacemanSpiff 09:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: and @Bonadea: This is which the user closed - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Indian Line of Control strike. There is also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knox Fortune but this seems to be some weird behavior. Full disclosure: I participated in the first one and voted "Keep" and the used did close it as "Keep" but I feel this won't end well and needs an experienced admin. This area (India-Pakistan) articles has turned into a virtual battle ground from editors on both sides and this AFD will need constant admin monitoring given that the last one saw WP:Votestacking from both POVs. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver—unless they're deliberately trying to appear non-native to Britain. Also, ADJEAD wrote >80 articles—none of which were on sport of any kind. And, again, their interaction is (so far) non-existant. But: this editor's early edits are certainly—professional, shall we say. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 14:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh boy, their NAC of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Indian Line of Control strike was even more disruptive, given that they had !voted in the discussion and then removed their !vote in order to close the discussion with yet another supervote... I reverted it. The Knox Fortune one is weird but doesn't need reverting as nobody had participated in the discussion in the five minutes that elapsed between VP's creating and closing it. I very much hope they will get the message about not closing any more AfDs. --bonadea contributions talk 16:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Need a Help

I have done more than 100 edits and my account is more than 4 months older, but their is no 'confirmed User' tag on my account, Please Help me to get that "Confirmed User" flag on my page. SwagLevelHigh (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@SwagLevelHigh: sorry, I am not an administrator and can't change editing privileges. In any case you are already autoconfirmed. --bonadea contributions talk 07:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• responded here User_talk:DBigXray#Need_a_Help --DBigXray 11:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hypnosis

Hi Bonadea

The article entered was an update to the users new url. it is relevant to the topic and the author is well respected and Adv Dip Hyp M.I.H.A. It should be reinstated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrpetreli (talk • contribs) 19:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that it was an update of an existing link, but it should never have been added in the first place. It added no value or information, and violated this. --

bonadea contributions talk 19:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah OK thank you.

Olivia Palermo page

Hi Bonadea, Thanks for feedback/corrections on the Olivia Palermo page. No COI here, I'm just new to this and trying to navigate correctly. I appreciate the feedback. I was going to continue working on that page, so welcome your continued input. Thanks!--Homerseditor (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I am justing posting achievements

Hey,

I am just posting achievements not an advertisement. However you need to write only about the Parul University and the page in the name of Parul University, while you have written about Jayesh Patel. You can create a separate page for Jayesh Patel and about theirs bad acts.

It is totally wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Compareseodelhi (talk • contribs) 05:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No, your edits removed sourced information about what the head of the university did in his capacity of head of the university, which is relevant for the article. Neutrally phrased and sourced info about achievements would be ok to add (without removing the sourced criticism) but not promotional text. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 05:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

ANI

Not a problem, I've had the same issues for the last hour or so as well. GiantSnowman 13:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Help Me

I am confused were to add links so can you tell me what type of articles is appropriate for adding links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anshul.sharma1998 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Anshul.sharma1998: Please do not add any links to your own website to any Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately, the site does not meet these requirements, and you have added links as references where the link did not in fact support the article content at all. I'm afraid you will need to find other places to promote your site, because Wikipedia is not the right place for it. --bonadea contributions talk 15:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

But I have seen so many refrences which have links of website only for promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anshul.sharma1998 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Sadly, that happens. Such spam references are removed as and when they are spotted. It is not a reason to add more inappropriate links :-) --bonadea contributions talk 18:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

If I write a unique article but it was already present at my website then it must be allowed or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anshul.sharma1998 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't quite understand what you mean. If you yourself write an article on your website, you should not link to it from Wikipedia because it is a conflict of interest to do so. I'm afraid artificial-future.com does not look like a reliable source per Wikipedia's definition of such sources and so it should not be used as a reference, nor should it be added as an external link. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 11:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I am saying that if i write a new unique article for wikipedia without any externel link then it must be alowed or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anshul.sharma1998 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see. If you write a new article at Wikipedia, it must have reliable sources to support the information. Please read Wikipedia:Your first article before starting to write an article. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 06:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Paran Bandopadhyay

Thanks for checking the recent edits to Paran Bandopadhyay. The same IP has added the actor to credits in several film articles today. It's not my subject area so I don't whether these are valid; you may wish to take a look. IMDB generally doesn't list the actor in these films, but it may be that IMDB is incomplete and the IP is correct. Thanks, Certes (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Certes: hi and thanks for your message. This is a user who, over the last month or so, has been using different IPs in the same range to add a few different actors in South Indian cinema to movies where they can't be found in any official cast lists - it is possible that some of their edits are correct but many of them are in fact completely wrong. There is a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Rudranil Ghosh. I haven't gone through the individual movie articles edited by this IP, mainly because I haven't had time to do so yet, but I elected to roll back all the edits to the Paran Bandopadhyay article even though it is just barely possible that he did appear in some of the movies. --bonadea contributions talk 11:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't spot the previous dubious contributions. I see you've asked the experts to consider a mass rollback there, so I'll leave the WikiProject to handle it. I appreciate the problem: I keep my eye on a similar fantasist who edits American film articles. Certes (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello Bonadea, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

• Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

• A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

• There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

• Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

• Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
• The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Number of participants

The bee's official instagram page says 516 Erfson (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Replied on article talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 15:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I mentioned you at ANI

Yourfav (talk · contribs): They're not really getting the point of the encyclopedia, I fear. Acroterion (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Deary, deary me. Thanks for the heads-up - I hadn't kept up with that user, I think they gave up on me when I removed their post from my talk page. I admire your patience and calm! I am absolutely appalled at their attitude and what they say. So much belligerence from an account who only edits articles on peace keeping... I don't think the irony is lost on anybody. --bonadea contributions talk 06:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sock stripping

Greetings. The edit you reverted on that wretched AfD was merely a stripping of wikilinks posted by the sockpuppet. Not only those links mostly lead nowhere but they clutter up space and divert attention. There is, of course, no question of altering in any way what the sockpuppet wrote. Their arguments are null and void, per policy; we allow them up (in a struck form) instead of deleting them completely but we do not need the drudgery of their detritus. -The Gnome (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I do understand why you edited their posts, but that discussion will soon be archived - the socks' posts are, as you say, irrelevant in the discussion, but not touching other users' posts as long as those posts are not violating any central policy is still important, to my mind. And it does fill a function to be able to look at exactly what those socks have written, and how they wrote it, when future socks show up on the horizon (how's that for a mixed metaphor!) Keep up the good work. --bonadea contributions talk 20:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not disagree with anything you say, except about the links part. We should be leaving up all sock verbiage (I disagree with admins deleting completely sock votes as, for example, here) but the refs & wikilinks they invoke, I believe, are to be deleted as they're just time-wasting traps and add to confusion. But it's no big deal. Take care! -The Gnome (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Reference

Due to the previous source had been taken down , due to unknown reason . Thus I decided to print down the webpage but not expose the website . http://www.5u5.ru/articles/articles-soc/93-1med.html .The pdf is a translated version of this article which had published in russia newspaper . Could this be a source ? Alexson 97 (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Online sources die, newspapers change their internal linking structure, sometimes they remove older archives - these things are very common. The vague statement in the Wikipedia article could not be sourced with the text you added as a source, however, not even if the original reference (information of when and where it was published) was provided. And to be clear, that text can't be used to support any kind of more specific allegations, either - not against any of the individual institutions named, since it is just a list of claims from anonymous sources. Sorry.

For the future, please keep all discussions about the article to the article's talk page, and don't bring them to the user talk pages of various editors - that just makes it harder to follow the discussion. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

What online sources die ? the text is a translated version of http://www.5u5.ru/articles/articles-soc/93-1med.html . And this published on newspaper . Alexson 97 (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You mentioned yourself that the newspaper link has stopped working (=died). Regardless, it cannot be used as a source for the reasons described above. I see you have been blocked, now. --bonadea contributions talk 07:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps

you could show up at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and put in a word about Nogales, Arizona or this stuff will go on all day? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Or better, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? Carptrash (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Carptrash: - I'm really sorry I disappeared just then. It looks like it is sorted at least temporarily, with the article protected against the valiant edito warrior. Thanks for reporting the IP. --bonadea contributions talk 18:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Yang Fenngang

Hello Bonadea,

Please watch also Draft:Fenggang Yang besides Templeton Foundation. I suspect that the involved users are trying (and will try) to self-promote and deliberately remove academically-backed criticism.--Amorphophallus Titanum (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Praneeth Rao Finial Edit

 Thanks

PraneAdword (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Praneeth RaoPraneAdword (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Issue about your revert of the list of Hibiscus cultivars

Dear Bonadea Can you give me explanation how many of image allow in gallery ? and if i edit the list of hibiscus cultivars article to look like the list of mango cultivars is it ok ? .. Thank you --Trisorn Triboon (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Trisorn Triboon: thank you for your message. I don't know if there is a strict rule for the number of images, but my spontaneous reaction when seeing the many images on the list article was that it was excessive. In a list, it is common to have images of some of the entries in the right-hand margin, as List of Hibiscus cultivars does have - note also that each image is clearly identifiable as one of the entries in the list, as the explanatory text of the image tallies with the name of the cultivar in the list. In the gallery you added, I'm not sure if any of the images was identified as one of the list entries, and in addition the gallery was placed at the bottom of the page. As a result, it became a colourful but not helpful addition; I think the images are lovely, but images in a Wikipedia article have to have a purpose beyond that - each image should help the reader understand the subject better. It is possible to understand the variety that exists without adding 55 images to the article, and 55 images of unidentified hibiscus flowers don't really help the reader understand the subject better. I see that you have already uploaded your images to Wikimedia Commons, and that is where an image gallery such as this belongs. Does that make sense? --bonadea contributions talk 12:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

External links to at Therapy

External link of continua kids to Therapy page is not a spam link continua kids is a center that provide therapy for autistic kids — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejagla (talk • contribs) 07:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The reason we include references in Wikipedia articles is to give scholarly sources that verify the information in the article. Why did you think that the information "Among psychologists and other mental health professionals, including psychiatrists, psychiatric nurse practitioners, counselors, and clinical social workers, the term may refer specifically to psychotherapy" was verified by a commercial link to a physiotherapy centre in Gurgaon? It seems as if you were looking for a place to post the link, not a resource that would verify the information, and that's pretty much the definition of spamming Wikipedia, I'm afraid. The information about Wikipedia's external links policy was posted to your talk page well before you added the most recent external links, so you have had every opportunity to find out why those links would not be appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia, let alone in a reference for something unrelated. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Affordable Housing

I have already requested the page to be removed. Jigar d2018 (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Jigar Desai

Hi Jigar d2018, I think you misinterpreted my message on your talk page - it was not about the Anil Salvi page (which I haven't seen, and which was apparently deleted yesterday) but about a link you added to Affordable housing which did not support the information in the article. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The link was in reference to the Home Buying on Agreement in India. From a reader's perspective, essentially from India, that guide is must have. I think that would really help the User. I respect your decision of removing the link, but I consider it to be really great. I do understand that its biased towards India, but my area of expertise is in India and I can't really do anything about it, Sorry. I really don't want to appeal against the deletion. Jigar d2018 (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Jigar Desai

But the link was added to support information about a finance plan from 2008 in San Diego, California, and hence it did not help the reader at all! It does seem as if you scanned the article for the word "agreement" and added the link after that without checking the context.[1] That's not how references should be added to Wikipedia - we don't go around looking for a good place to add an external link, we find information that needs a reference that supports the info. In addition, please check WP:ELNO. dwello.in is a commercial company and as such should be used very sparingly as a reference. --bonadea contributions talk 12:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

" The Sebastian Rodriguez Show "

Hello why is it that we cannot make a page for " The Sebastian Rodriguez Show " ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor1808 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Sebastian. The article title The Sebastian Rodriguez Show was protected about a year ago after it had been created and recreated many times in spite of being clearly unsuitable for Wikipedia. Other articles were also vandalisd by being overwritten with text about you and/or your show - text that was at least in part clearly not true, e.g. here. List of most-listened-to radio programs had to be protected for a while last June because incorrect claims about your show were added to the list. Please don't use Wikipedia to try to promote yourself or your show; we all understand that you are passionate about it, but this is not the way to create a following. If and when a significant number of independent sources write in depth about your radio show, there can be an article about it - but it should be written by someone who has no connection to you at all. --bonadea contributions talk 17:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

BLT problem

I didn't intend to vandalise or get into edit wars with you, sorry! I was trying to help those articles and actually citing my sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondboy9756 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bondboy9756: don't worry - I just wanted to make you aware of the fact that repeatedly reverting other editors' edits back to your own version can lead to trouble. You are not in trouble, I just didn't want it to get that far :-) --bonadea contributions talk 12:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Bondboy9756 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Bonadea, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

• As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
• Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
• Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Promotional material for Bob Ross

I made some well-cited additions to Bob Ross's page. It was not a promotion and I was not compensated in any way. Can you explain why you believed it was promotional? Pumpkinchica (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Because you have added the exact same promotional text about the same company to about ten other articles as well, and in the eleven months since you created your account you have made no edits at all that did not promote the company or their products. A regular editor who edits in order to improve the encyclopedia does not follow that pattern in their edits. I have only removed the additions that were blatantly inappropriate and lacked sources - in the case of Bob Ross you had one press release and one Daily Mail article, neither of which is a reliable source, so anybody would have removed that when it was discovered. Please do not edit articles to promote the company you represent. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 21:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of my edit at WP:AIV

I was thinking why you reverted my report of a user who is attacking you ? Kpgjhpjm 13:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Kpgjhpjm: - I'm sorry about that, it was not on purpose. As I mentioned in the edit summary here, where I restored your report, it was an edit conflict. The same troll (who, by the way, is a sockpuppet of a community banned editor who has been socking for several years...) had also vandalised the AIV page, and I rolled back his vandalism at the same time as you posted the report. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 13:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes , I see that . I myself have been involved in 3 editors conflicts before at AIV. Kpgjhpjm 13:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 28

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 28, April – May 2018

• #1Bib1Ref
• New partners
  • Rock's Backpages
  • Invaluable
  • Termsoup
• User Group update
• Global branches update
  • Wikipedia Library global coordinators' meeting
• Spotlight: What are the ten most cited sources on Wikipedia? Let's ask the data
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Aditya Powar

I respect all the terms mentioned above sir. I didn't knew that the article has been protected from creation at the first place. When I was about to create an article it said that the article has been protected from creation. I do not have any personal relations with Aditya Powar. He is an reputed Indian author and I know him only by reading his work. I thought an article about this author should be created, but unfortunately the article was protected from creation Aa015 (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

P90 correction

So demonizing gun owners to make them all look like shooters is appropriate? Is that just you views or Wikipedia? Jo1791 (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The answer to your second question is "neither". -bonadea contributions talk 16:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Alison Brown sock cleanup

One of the edits you undid was by User:Calton, a well-established editor who correctly observed that our content matched an external source. Could you double-check [2]? DMacks (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Carlton was right and I was wrong. I posted an apology to their talk page. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 07:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Glad it's fixed (I washed the socks). DMacks (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Anthony Bailey

I noticed you removed some sourced references I found online concerning the above article. You state there is some sort of whitewash which I am confused about. I have sourced two government sources concerning Bailey's knighthood from the Portuguese President and the Slovak medal he received. Both are relevant to the subject as he is actively engaged with both countries and neither is related to the controversies concerning Antigua or the given to him in some official exchange.

I have tried to correct a biased opinion presented as a fact in the wikipedia page. The mentioned opinion is unsubstantiated or is covered in other articles. The references to the Constantinian Order are more appropriate for the pages on the Order rather than Bailey but I leave that for wider community consensus. This is felt also with the references to the Mail on Sunday which Wikipedia has anyway considered it as unreliable as a source here. Again I am sure there are much experienced Wikipedians to deal with this. OrelofHampton —Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Please see the information on your user talk page. Thanks. --bonadea contributions talk 16:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I am a little confused here. Surely your blanket removal of all my edits should be the subject of the discussion? Do correct me if I am wrong. They are also properly sourced links from official sites. What are your thoughts too on the references to the tabloid paper Mail on Sunday being quoted. I am uncomfortable about this. I realise there are numerous issues with the subject but at the end of the day this is an encyclopaedia and not the pages of a tabloid paper. I do not know the subject although he is a parishioner in my church. OrelofHampton —Preceding undated comment added 16:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Now I am a little confused, specifically by why you refer to your removal of sourced material, which had been removed by an IP and restored by me, as "removal of all my edits"? But to clarify, there has been a fairly long-term pattern of disruption to the article with various accounts being created to remove anything that is not directly flattering to Bailey. There is a consensus among experienced editors (with no conflict of interest, which is crucial) that the material belongs, and thus, it is the removal that has to be discussed if you want to change the consensus in favour of removing the material. As for the awards that you added, both of them were previously mentioned in the article but were removed after a discussion had ended in consensus for their removal, about a year ago. So yet again, it is not my restoration of the consensus version of the page that needs discussion, but your revert away from what consensus had decided. --bonadea contributions talk 07:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Bonadea. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 11:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Received it - will respond later tonight. --bonadea contributions talk 14:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I just added Stud information on Uptowncharlybrown identical to the racehorse Tapit. Neither Uptowncharlybrown nor any of his sons and daughters are for sale! So how you got that this was advertising is mind boggling. The racehorse Uptowncharlybrown has become a stallion in the last 6 years. Those are all accurate statistics about his second career. If you want to add Stud Career as is the case with Tapit in which they even advertise his stud fee ( I did not). I just don’t understand what you’re trying to accomplish. Tapit is the number one stallion in America. Uptowncharlybrown is now a stallion too. How can one be allowed and the other be disallowed. He didn’t die. He’s enjoying a successful stud career as well.

Thank You Bob Bobhutt99 (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Good work at Dr. Phil (talk show) handling the sexy vegan nonsense. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! :-) --bonadea contributions talk 06:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry

I apologise for my comment in the treehouse, which you seemed to take umbridge with. Please believe me when I say, words simply cannot express the remorse that I feel. You referred to my words as hyperbolic, does that mean that you accept my assertions are true but you thought they were a little over exaggerated? I would be grateful if you could clear this up for me.Cr@Z Kit-Kat Lover^t@lk 08:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Still climbing trees, B.?!  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Reminder re Britain First

Hi, Bonadea. I daresay you have the sources on your side, but please don't forget 3RR is a bright line. BTW User:Andrew Swallow has posted on your userpage by mistake. Normally, I'd move it over to this page, but I'm not sure you want it. Bishonen | talk 18:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC).

Yeah, thanks, I'm aware of it. Changing a well-sourced fact to say its exact opposite is of course disruption, but I'm not going to risk even a brief 3RR block to please a bunch of bona fide fascists :-) --bonadea contributions talk 18:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Manjari Fadnis

I have a non free fair use image as an evidence to revert your last edits , but it's replaceability has been put to question telling the mere text is sufficient to to replace the image but you have instead deleted the text even , the source of the file at Twitter , Instagram and throwback share on Instagram by the celebrity 's official profile concerned has been denied for not being an appropriate proof of that statement , so image for text or text for image replaceability , it's confusing , and denial of sole evidence present on the internet also ! If it's possible then think of reverting those edits , the photo which I myself deleted the one directly uploaded to Wikipedia with the fair use claim as it was tagged with delete caption and citation deleted for not being a appropriate source , it's a matter of your own discretion ! You can leave a message on my talk page if you don't wish to discuss here ! Crispgatoglitz (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand what you are talking about here. The text I deleted was a claim (repeated four times) that the actress had received a very notable award that she very clearly had not received. She may or may not have been the recipient of a different award by a very similar name, but a) that award lacks notability and so it shouldn't be included in a Wikipedia article, and b) the source showed that she wasn't on the list of recipients for that award either. According to the source she performed at the award function. In any case, an image is not a source for that kind of claim, and Instagram and Twitter are not possible to use as sources, nor is the person's own official website. But don't waste time on this - the award is not notable in any case. --bonadea contributions talk 22:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Crispgatoglitz (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Wayne Pedzwater article

Hi Bonadea, a musician who has recorded and played in concerts with modern music legends such as Michael Jackson, Carole King, Buddy Rich, Blood Sweat & Tears and many others, is eligible to dispel doubts about its relevance within the project. Spero tu sia d'accordo! Regards, --CoolJazz5 (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@CoolJazz5: No, that is not necessarily true. There are no sources in the article that actually discuss Pedzwater in any depth, and so notability is still not shown. Please have a look at this information about the requirements for notability for musicians. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 20:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. ()

Hello Bonadea, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Rodger Penzabene post.

I am honestly trying to make the page better by using what has already been picked up from Wikipedia organically.

The page is currently inaccurate and it is hurtful to his relatives. I have no business associations with them at all, but am sympathetic to their concerns.

The page was more accurate the way I changed it although I may not have done so properly. Am merely trying to cite the third reference that was already on the page before I edited it

Please help me properly make this page more accurate.

Thank you

Keithcrime1965 (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Brad Laidman

To reiterate what other editors have already asked you to do: please use the article talk page to discuss your edits when they have been reverted. In addition to removing well-sourced information, you added long and largely irrelevant quotes with no source (note that you should never use your own website as a source in Wikipedia, and comments on a blog are not a reliable source at all). I don't understand what you mean by "what has been picked up from Wikipedia organically". But again, please don't discuss here - use the article's talk page and get consensus for your changes first. --bonadea contributions talk 01:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Bonadea - it would be useful to have your input on the article talk page as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC) PS: However, the contentious blog site seems now to have been taken down, so the issue may be resolved. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Rodger Penzabene post.

Am honestly trying to make the page better.

The third citation was not put there from me it was put there organically from Wikipedia

Please help me make this page better I do not have any conflicts of interest.

If Wikipedia erred in the past using that third source than please delete or change the information that now has no citation because it did in fact come from that third citation.

Thank you and seeking to help more effectively and properly

Keithcrime1965 (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Previous message

I'm sorry for the last post here. I did not see your response until after I posted it.

Thank you,

Keithcrime1965 (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Khamakha

check the edits if you are satisfied with the plot now Crispgatoglitz (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you fixed the copyright violation issue. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 09:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

SPA

I would like to tell you that the pages I have created concerning works related to Manjari Fadnis are the ones which were either marked red asking for creating a page or were completely blank , I haven't touched the existing articles related to her work but browsed them too to see the source code written .few days ago , her biography article was outdated as it had the cut copy paste work talking of 2015 or something , I simply changed their tense to make it sound like a past thing and yes , I added a lot of content about her originally missing and citations on your advice. Crispgatoglitz (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

None of this is a problem :-) But you have said yourself that you are an ardent fan, and you have only edited articles about her and films she's been in, and that is the definition of a SPA (single purpose account). As long as you edit according to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies as best you can, it's not a problem. --bonadea contributions talk 09:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the AIV note

I've added user:WhenDatHotlineBling to my list of socks I'll recognize. Meters (talk) 08:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Clarification

Hello,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/855078533

Could you please explain this? You mean to say the actual quote (as it appears in the source) should be cited without any modification? That becomes a copy-paste. Let me know if I've misunderstood something. Onkuchia (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Language of Pakistan

Hi,

Please see Whymustimakeanaccount comment on Talk:Pakistan/Archive 19#Infobox "recognized languages" redundant. Thanks— Bukhari (Talk!) 17:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much

Hello Bonadea,

Thank you very much for reverting on the article of Pakistan. The user deleted the Arabic language in the Infobox and wrote: “Arabic is not recognized language Arabic is not spoken in Pakistan”. However, the Arabic language is mentioned in the constitution of Pakistan. The source for this information was indicated.

I think it is very important that Wikipedia is only based on the truth and facts and reliable sources. This was the reason, why I have started to contribute on Wikipedia.

Again, thank you very much, Bonadea.

Best regards,

Tom --Tom112233 (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The fact that people are encouraged to learn Arabic in order to understand the Quran does not mean that Pakistan authorities recognize the Arabic language, OR is needed. Thanks — Bukhari (Talk!) 17:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The fact that "the Arabic language is mentioned in the constitution of Pakistan" and that "The National Education Policy declares that Arabic will be a compulsory part in the school" makes it clear that Pakistan gives the Arabic language a special status in the country. For this reason, the Arabic language is a recognized language in Pakistan.

(The National Education Policy 2017 declares in article 3.7.4 that: “Arabic as compulsory part will be integrated in Islamiyat from Middle to Higher Secondary level to enable the students to understand the Holy Quran.“ Furthermore, it specifies in article 3.7.6: “Arabic as elective subject shall be offered properly at Secondary and Higher Secondary level with Arabic literature and grammar in its course to enable the learners to have command in the language.“ This law is also valid for private schools as it defines in article 3.7.12: “The curriculum in Islamiyat, Arabic and Moral Education of public sector will be adopted by the private institutions to make uniformity in the society.“)

Best regards,

Tom --Tom112233 (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) @Tom112233: That's not what "recognized language" means. Being a compulsory second/third language in school does not make a language a "recognized language", if that was the case English would be a recognized language in most countries in Europe since it's a compulsory subject in schools in most countries there, but it isn't. The term "recognized language" is used for languages spoken natively by a sizeable minority within the country, and indicates that the language has a status below that of an official language, but can still be used for official purposes within the area where it's recognized (a country as a whole or a subdivision of the country). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Tom,

Thank you very much for your participation. I like to explain my point of view.

What makes a language an official language of a country? That the population of this country communicates in this language? - No. That the people can use this language for official purposes within a country? - No. That this is an indigenous language of the original inhabitant of the country (like the Aboriginal people in Australia or the Inca in South America or the American Indian who are the original inhabitant of North America)? - No. It only matters what is stated in the constitution of a country. It is the same case with national languages. It only depends what is stated in the constitution.

You are right. It is true that in many European countries it is compulsory to learn English in the school. However, the English language is not mentioned in the constitution of these European countries. In the constitution of the France the French language is mentioned, in the constitution of Germany the German language is mentioned and in Italy the Italian language is mentioned. There are also countries where national languages or minority languages are mentioned in the constitution of a country.

As the Arabic language is stated in the constitution of Pakistan I would say this gives the Arabic language a special status. And if a language has a special status in a country that means that this language is in some way a recognized language in this country.

Do you understand what I mean?

I would be happy if you reply.

Best regards,

Tom --Tom112233 (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Updates on Uptownchalrybrown

Dear Bonadea,

so obviously somebody put the horse Uptownchalrybrown with information what is outdated and incorrect on Wikipedia.

You are telling me since I have the correct and accurate information I can't change the wrong information because I'm connected to Uptownchalrybrown.

You are telling me you rather have incorrect and outdated information on Wikipedia then have it correct and accurate to use for all your users

Does that make any sense to you??

Appreciate your feedback

Best regards Joerg

Joerg Hoffmann VP UTCB STUD LLC (732) 766-4507 jhoffmann1961@icloud.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joerghoffmann1209 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 29

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 29, June – July 2018

• New partners
  • Economic & Political Weekly–10 accounts
• Wikimania
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

You can add this to the list of socks

I guess [3]--DBigXrayᗙ 15:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Heh, yes, clearly. I don't actually keep a list, though - I report the ones I spot unless they have already been blocked, and then forget about them. Thanks for helping clean up after the troll. --bonadea contributions talk 19:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Removing The First Academy Content?

Why did you remove the actual content for 'The First Academy'? We had a user contributed version like this prior to the 'Controversy' section added in 2016, likely by the users who wrote those cited article. Parents and guests have asked us why we haven't added our school details this back to our Wikipedia page.

If every school posted a controversy section about a former student everytime they, while off-campus, during the summer when they're not enrolled caused a displinary action, all school pages would be a disciplinary log. Rather than being a page about The First Academy, you have a page about a single incident that wasn't even directly about The First Academy. It's instead about actions former students took, while off campus, not on school hours, and heresay promoting paid pieces from another person named Shawn King.

In 2016, the page was defaced, administrators were replaced with racist authors, as was the principal. Our content was removed and replaced with with this controversy section. The First Academy is not a place about controversy or of controversy, so this makes zero sense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timnethers (talk • contribs) 15:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The reason I removed the edit has been explained on your user talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 16:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Timnethers: I responded to your message at the Teahouse. I suggest you review that advice before proceeding further. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Heads up

There's some IPV6 user forum-shopping some of your reverts. Their complaints are all so half-baked that it's hard to see exactly what they're upset about beyond, you know, you. But thought you should know. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - it's yet another ipsock of Nsmutte who has been community banned for quite some time, so removing the post was the only thing to do. But I appreciate the heads-up. --bonadea contributions talk 19:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Nazar (TV Series)

Hi, it seems like the page is a target for vandalism; especially, people who desperately want to give Sonyaa Pink's name some credibility. Few minutes back, I undid another revision from an IP address, who changed Smita Bansal's name to Sonyaa Pink. Can something be done to protect the page against such vandalism? Csgir (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry bonodea I suggest you watch the show before you stop people from adding facts. If so many people are giving credit to Sonyaa, then I’m not sure how is that vandalism? I suggest you get your facts before removing news link and reliable sources when added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewikicreator01 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed and explained on the article talk page. Wikipedia articles include information supported by reliable independent sources. There is no reliable independent source supporting the assertion that you are a main charater in the series; you are the only account adding that claim, despite having been asked (repeatedly) not to promote yourself, and not to edit the article directly since you have a conflict of interest. You have provided one independent source supporting your claim that Sonyaa is an actor in the series, so that info is fine to include. Until that source appeared, the info was not included. --bonadea contributions talk 09:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Why

That's not good man . I can not see my honourable king's character spoiled by idiots jealous people of india . I know that there long quarrel about him but this edit was not act of vandalism.i not believe in destruction just writing truths . I have many proofs about sambhaji that he not addicted and lustful. He was the great worrior that even Guinness book of world record says he never lost a single battle Tell me friend how can a irresponsible man can do this. Please approve my edit. Purushottam nawale (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

You changed well-sourced text to something that was very difficult to understand, but did not appear to agree with the sources at all. Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable sources write. More info here. --bonadea contributions talk 16:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Adminship

Just wondering... have you ever considered it? I think you'd have a very good shot. Best, GAB^gab 18:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: I'm sorry for the late reply - your question surprised me, to be honest! I'm quite flattered, and it's of course very good to hear that people think I might have a chance. The tools would be handy and I think I possess enough common sense not to misuse them, but at this point I would quite frankly not want to run the RfA gauntlet. Thank you for asking, though! Much appreciated :-) --bonadea contributions talk 18:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I second the motion - as I told you last year, and as many people have probably told you over the years. IMO you have nothing to fear from RfA; I think you would be a shoo-in - and possibly exceed 200 supports. You heard it here first! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Yet another (talk page watcher) I third the motion B. I will add that whether as a humble contributor or a future admin you are an asset to the 'pedia and I thank you for all you do around here. MarnetteD|Talk 18:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I rest my case GAB^gab 19:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

(sneaks in more support though GAB rested his case) I asked an admin to semi-protect ResetEra after I discovered it had been vandalized by IP trolls for a year, regularly being reverted by good editors, one of them being you. You had reverted the page three times before semi-protection, and once after.

Think how much editor effort would have been saved if an admin could have semi-protcted after the first two months. Be that admin for us. Apply.

Tagus 06:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagus (talk • contribs)

• bonadea you are clearly overqualified for this post. If nothing, you will have more power (and another hand) to deal with nsmutte harassment socks and the disruptions they cause. For the greater good of the community, you should think about it, take your time and see you as an admin soon. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

... and just to rub my point in a little more: We have selected five new admins in the last four months. Four of them got over 200 supports. Bottom line, there is no need to fear RfA. --MelanieN (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

Hello Bonadea, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news

• The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.

As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.

• There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.

Other

• A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.

Moving to Draft and Page Mover

• Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
• If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
• Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
• The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js^(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
• The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget. In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions. MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues. User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page) User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50). User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you. User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link. User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion. User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Response to your Query

Hi Bonadea, I have added my response to your query at my talk page. Was not sure if adding a response in my talk page would notify you, hence posting this note. Please check. Vishaalgautam (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bonadea, waiting for your response and guidance on my response to your query. Vishaalgautam (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Bonadea. You have new messages at Vishaalgautam's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your quick help on the VS Ramachandran entry.Neurorel (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

KEKAPETA

Hi Bonadea. KEKAPETA turned up during a Nsmutte sweep. I'd rate it as pretty fishy. What are your thoughts? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: I was about 95% convinced it was Nsmutte, actually. He used to edit medical topics - hypertension, IIRC - so the subject is not out of character and the writing is pretty charateristic. --bonadea contributions talk 05:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. Wave goodbye, if so inclined. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

[4] --bonadea contributions talk 07:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Speedy notification of a talk page

You'd be surprised how often that happens! Black Kite (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Please Stop

Please do not change my edit it is very rude!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanand1 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Please take a moment to read the information provided on your user talk page (specifically this, this, and this which tells you why you can't use your own measurements on Google Maps), and please understand that you are not allowed to simply revert other editors multiple times. Unfortunately, you have now reverted four other editors at Meadow Brook Hall, and then removed the report that was posted to this board, so I suspect you are facing a short block from editing, to stop your disruption. --bonadea contributions talk 07:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Tanya Ekanayaka Page

Hello, Bonadea,contributions talk the subject is a composer-pianist and also a linguist, musicologist and record producer. See PhD thesis referenced in infobox and google name if unsure - this is what I did. The two solo CDs under the subject's name were produced by her. Therefore, it is inaccurate to categorise the subject as a composer-pianist alone. Can this be corrected? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NSNMN (talk • contribs) 13:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello once again, Bonadea,contributions talk- the Discography section listing published works of the subject has been deleted. Can this be reverted? - I could do so if this is okay? Nearly ALL pages of composers on Wikipedia include a Discography section with listings of their works! So why has the section on this user's page been deleted? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NSNMN (talk • contribs) 14:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@NSNMN: please add four tildes, ~~~~, after your talk page posts to sign them. You have requested help with cleanup of the article, so please don't start reverting people who help with the cleanup process! If you have questions or suggestions about specific edits, the article's talk page is the best place. Her PhD qualifications are not necessarily identical to her occupation, and we have no sources that support that she works as a linguist, for instance. Her academic career can be added (with reliable secondary sources) to the career section. --bonadea contributions talk 14:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

What is the reason of removing "Bech De Kharid Le" ??

What is the reason of removing "Bech De Kharid Le" ??

Did you see external references "https://www.sellbuystuffs.com/business-classifieds-in-india/index" It is having list of business directories as well similar like below that references link in the same page, and below external link was not removed?? What is the reason of having below link in the page and not the above link??

https://curlie.org/Computers/Internet/Searching/Directories — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jit336699 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

sellbuystuffs.com is not a reference - it the url of Bech De Kharid Le. The page List of web directories includes web directories that have an article in Wikipedia, which Bech De Kharid Le doesn't have; it is not a page where every single web directory in the world can be listed, and not a page to link to external directories. curlie.org is the successor of dmoz.org and is a special case. --bonadea contributions talk 18:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Need a help

Dear Sir

I have created a page and it’s showing draft and can you help me to make it live ?? And the page is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:British_Herald

I am new to editing and not expert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahim.ram09 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

No, sorry. There could perhaps be an article about the 19th century newspaper, but not about the brand-new website by the same name. --bonadea contributions talk 18:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Correction: it doesn't seem like the paper was notable either. --bonadea contributions talk 19:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

responding to questions

i was stupid before and got myself blocked before on accident before i made my account and am trying to make up for it by helping out people and preventing vandalism now.-Pearl playa (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Bonadea, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal

• There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
• Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

• ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
• There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

New scripts

• User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Alfredo Bowman

Hi- I notice you flagged my edits on this page as disruptive, but the existing article references several unreliable sources or uses them incorrectly entirely. For instance,

"and factored in faux-afrocentric[9] claims about the unique genetic characteristics of Africans and its diaspora."

cites sources, 9, 10 and 11.

Source 9 is a secondhand source from a Moorish author who lauds Bowman but contains no claim that Dr. Sebi ascribes to these beliefs and therefore does not support this claim in any way.

Sources 10 makes no claim about the unique genetic characteristics of Africans so it also does not support this claim.

Source 11 references a letter that is neither signed nor verified and is hosted on an unreliable 3rd party site. Further research reveals no further attribution for the letter nor mention of it in any verifiable source.

The edits I made did not attempt to change the spirit of the article, but only to back it with verifiable words attributable to the subject of the article, as reprinted here:

https://drsebiscellfood.com/methodology/

The other article cited is a verifiable study in a peer-reviewed journal, available for view here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/

The existing edits you reverted to are clearly in violation of several Wikipedia rules, especially those forbidding biased/one -sided opinion pushing. It seems clear the current edit of this article exhibits clear pro-pharmaceutical views and deliberately misuses some evidence and ignores others in order to do so.Ddeleon82 (talk) 05:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This discussion belongs on the article's talk page, not on a user talk page. Note that primary sources can not be used to support any of the claims about the efficiacy of his methods. --bonadea contributions talk 06:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 30

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 30, August – Septmeber 2018

• Library Card translation
• Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref spreads to the Southern Hemisphere and beyond
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)