User talk:Bonadea

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

This is Bonadea's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives

Archive 1 (Dec 2006 - Jun 2007) Archive 2 (Jun-Jul 2007 - Dec 2007) Archive 3 (Jan 2008 - Jul 2008) Archive 4 (Jul 2008 - Nov 2008) Archive 5 (Nov 2008 - Feb 2009) Archive 6 (Mar 2009 - Nov 2009) Archive 7 (Dec 2009 - Jul 2010) Archive 8 (Jul 2010 - Sep 2010) Archive 9 (Oct 2010 - April 2011) Archive 10 (May 2011 - Nov 2011) Archive 11 (Dec 2011 - May 2012) Archive 12 (Jun 2012 - Dec 2012) Archive 13 (Jan 2013 - Jun 2013) Archive 14 (Jul 2013 - April 2014) Archive 15 (May 2014 - Oct 2014) Archive 16 (Nov 2014 - 15 Nov 2015) Archive 17 (21 Nov 2015 - Mar 2016) Archive 18 (18 Mar 2016 - Dec 2016) Archive 19 (Jan 2017 - Jun 2017) Archive 20 (Jul 2017 - Nov 2017) Archive 21 (Dec 2017 - April 2018) Archive 22 (May 2018 - Oct 2018) Archive 23 (Nov 2018 - May 2019) Archive 24 (June 2019 - Aug 2019) Archive 25 (Aug 2019 - Jan 2020) Archive 26 (31 Jan 2020 – June 2020) Archive 27 (July 2020 – February 2021) Archive 28 (March 2021 – October 2021) Archive 29 (November 2021 – January 2022) Archive 30 (February 2022 – April 2022)

Bonadea, Han Terra page seems to be vandalized so that it should be restored to previous version. Please give your opinion. You reverted many of editing which I have contributed to other pages that I needed to learn about editing way of yours moreover it hurt my feelings that you hided what I wrote to share my opinion this page also. Also you brought other mobilized user to threaten me to ban my account. I have no idea how this manners have to be considered. Respectfuly yours. Thanks.

• NeverTry4Me (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Pallab Bhattacharyya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

_{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 06:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Just to let you know I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Anne Gunn. It pretty much passes, but it does rather understate her achievement as written: She wasn't just the first to get a British patent on a musical board game, she was the first to get a patent on any board game whatsoever according to the source. While I get why you'd want to specify a little more detail about the board game, it's probably beyond DYK to cover everything. Unless you have a way to do so in the character limit. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 20:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bonadea,

I have found the talk page message you left for me when I opened Wikipedia today morning. I do not understand the logic behind your aggression. I have repeatedly told you that I'm a photojournalist based out of West Bengal and I primarily create and edit pages with Bengali links. Yet, you threaten to block me from editing on Wikipedia (okay let's leave that as it is). Now, when it comes to the content on the page above, here are certain 'independent' and I believe, very much 'reliable' sources:

1. That the subject is an FRAS: https://www.ndtv.com/education/republic-day-2021-meet-rashtriya-bal-puraskar-winners (NDTV - source date 2021). This is neither an interview with the subject, nor does NDTV do independent press releases, explaining why it deserves to be classified as an independent, reliable news source.

2. Coming to the second point, which is the subject's association with the Ministry of Education on a project for some Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav programme, please find the links here: a. https://www.nbtindia.gov.in/writereaddata/attachmentNews/saturday-december-25-20212-09-34-pmresults-of-all-india-contest-of-pm-yuva-mentorship-shceme.pdf b. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1811451 This is a project of national importance, and was launched in late August, 2021. Results were declared in December, 2021 but I only came across that in March or April 2022. I do not understand why it doesn't form an important source. The links given are both those of the Government of India's and I do not know what could be more reliable. This is not a primary reference to anything, for your information.

I will not edit these unless you give me your opinion and on what you think the sources above (NDTV, NBT and PBI) are promotional and/or have published a press release whatsoever. It'd be really really great if you could enlighten me on these aspects for I am very much willing to learn editing on Wikipedia!

Thanks, Rohan9082 (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Rohan9082[reply]

Hi,

I recently came across an update detailing on the death of Jyoti Kumari's father Mohan Paswan on India Today (https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/father-of-bihar-s-cycle-girl-jyoti-kumari-dies-of-cardiac-arrest-1809105-2021-05-31). Could you please let me know if I could add this to the article or not? Does a father's death impact much about the article? If yes, I will. But I don't feel a father;s death has anything major to do with the subject, except for the fact that she's famed for having saved her father's life in 2021.

thanks, Rohan9082 (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Rohan9082[reply]

sir please look at Alha, some people added info without sources Tryant Saurashtrian (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bonadea, may I know which part of the article I need to improve on? It was previously declined for the same reason but I have removed sentences that were previously highlighted as an advertisement. Do advise and I'll make the necessary changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasvind Singh (talk • contribs) 18:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasvind Singh: thank you for your message. It is not an issue that affects any specific part of the article – it's the entire text. When you asked about the previous decline here, you were given a few examples of inappropriate expressions and sentences, and it looks like you removed those specific instances but left everything else as it was. Note, however, that it doesn't matter how neutral the writing is as long as there is no indication of notability for the company – you have already been directed to read WP:NCORP, a notability guideline that is essential reading if you want to create a Wikipedia article about a company. All the draft says is that this is a "tech-enabled coffee chain" (whatever that is when it is at home), with a paragraph on funding and a list of store openings. The section WP:CORPDEPTH, which is part of the guideline I linked above, includes the sub-section "Examples of trivial coverage" which explains that such information doesn't indicate notability for a company. The information can perhaps be included – well, not the funding stuff since that's almost invariably irrelevant. But if there's independent coverage, not press releases, about store openings, that's something that could be in the article. But the draft can only be accepted if there is an actual claim to notability. --bonadea contributions talk 19:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Senior Editor, I remember you were part of the discussions on Alha, Udal of Mahoba, and one more page. It was discussed extensively and was decided as per closing comments of another senior editor. The pages definitely had stable version after it including all the relevant references. I think the pages should remain to that stable versions. There was literally no dispute until new SPAs jumped with disruptive editing. I think the page should also have protection. RS6784 (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just read over your edits--there's a line here between reasonable cuts and quantifying material as "promotional." The revisions you made to the opening paragraph were great, I wasn't sure how to write this part without being "promotional," which was why I resorted to using a citation to enumerate the store's stock.

But cutting down the historical parts, and removing the characterful headings, does not make for better history.

I appreciate caution as a new article is proposed or moved to mainspace, but the independent bookstore, and particularly the independent genre bookstore, like Science fiction, fantasy and horror bookstores is a particular, and passing, piece of Americana. You may not be aware, but Neil Gaiman in particular is an important, if not critical, figure in this scene (along with George R.R. Martin, as the sf & f scene has moved from the *frowsy* 1970 through the period when Gaiman, in particular, made at least some sf & F *cool* through to the commercialized present.

Wikipedia is about laying the groundwork for the researchers who will be writing the articles of the future. Most of the writers listed in the "early years" section of Dreamhaven's history are dead, but they are also regarded as among the "greats" in the field. Some researcher of the future is going to call up Wikipedia and scratch their head, wondering "what year did Harlan Ellison sign at Dreamhaven?" or, twenty years (or whatever) from now, "When did Neil Gaiman start becoming a cult phenomenon?" *That's* when a page on Dreamhaven is going to be valuable.

Again, I appreciate the work you have put in here. But let's find a balance.

Thanks for the attention-- Sicklemoon (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the bookshop in question – you may not know this, but it is very well known in fandom (not as "Americana" which doesn't seem to be a particularly relevant descriptor). I hope you realise how patronising your comments about Neil Gaiman and GRRM are, but there is no point dwelling on that.

Wikipedia articles are not the basis for research, now or in the future; they are – or should be – summaries of what other, independent, publications have already said about a topic. As sff fans, we have a responsibility to present genre related topics in a very neutral fashion if we write about them in Wikipedia. Including multiple long quotes comes across as promotional. Creative section headings can be ok, but they still have to be descriptive. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 15:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A patronizing tone was not my intention. I had no reason to know that the reviewing editor working over my article was familiar with Dreamhaven or genre bookstores in America or SF & F in general, thus my preambulatory comment: "you may not be aware." Is there some politer, Wikipedia-senior-editor approved way I should have stated that?

I have had articles cut down, questioned, or sent back to draft space here on Wikipedia, either because a reviewing editor was being quick with their work, or because they did not immediately understand terminology or necessary context--or because I had made some sort of error. After checking in with those editors, it has seldom been hard to find a balance that seemed to suit both sides. The process of correction is, or should be, impersonal. VERY LITTLE about your response to my check in with you was impersonal.

Your point about fandom: "As sff fans, we have a responsibility to present genre related topics in a very neutral fashion." (emphasis mine) Excuse me?

The content of the original draft of the (not MY) Dreamhaven article is taken from published, and (by my judgment) reputable, sources. In a future draft, I would hope to see the article responsibly filled out in the three areas of the store's history, showing the store's significance in that historical context. Is this not the purpose of "developing" articles through the stages of stub to "A" class, or at least higher-class, articles? Perhaps *you* are editing as a "sff" fan, but it is not *my* intention to write as one. It is my intention to write a well-supported piece, adequately structured, and perhaps with sign-posts, to encourage some future editor to add and improve.

You write: "I am familiar with the bookshop in question – you may not know this, but it is very well known in fandom."

Perhaps you should not have been the one to review this article, as it would appear that you have a personal stake in the content. Given that you are familiar with the store, your editorial comment on the article itself "Seems notable enough to stay in mainspace – might need a closer source check though" reads as *highly* disingenuous.

As a relatively new Wikipedia editor, I am becoming increasingly aware of what it's like to fall (by innocent accident) into a powerful, more established editor's balliwick, and to get spanked because you're/one is (edit) not developing an article to some mysteriously pre-established model of how to write in that area. I can accept that there are reason beyond my ken for deletions, compressions, rearrangement. But your corrections and your tone here smack of something more than that. This Dreamhaven bookstore article is a generic piece, based on my looking at other mainspace Wikipedia bookstore pages to see what kinds of material have previously been regarded as acceptable. If there is some other criteria at work here, please let me know.

(BTW, we have different ideas of Americana but I think, post "American Gods," there would be published material in reliable sources to support my sense of that term's "drift", and perhaps even merit an update to, or expansion of, the topic as it is currently described on its Wikipedia page)

Sicklemoon (talk)

P.S. I also updated Dreamhaven Press while I worked on the store article. A question--I sourced that from the Dreamhaven titles on Abebooks. What is actually the Wikipedia-approved way to mention in-print/print titles? Citing Abebooks seemed like I'd be promoting Abebooks.

Good catch on the sources and copyvio! I should have been more thorough. S0091 (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091: Thanks! It's a bit sad, but I have come to recognise the press release style a bit too well... --bonadea contributions talk 18:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain the exact issue in it and how it is promotional? 2409:4052:2E8C:B62A:B100:48BC:33FD:44BD (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are multiple problems, not least that the company has been engaging in attempts to use Wikipedia as a marketing platform for years. The stated reasons for declining the draft was that it doesn't show how the company is notable (see these guidelines), and that it is promotionally written. A previous discussion on the draft's talk page ended in a rough consensus that PharmEasy is probably notable – but the current draft does nothing to show that, and given the spamming issues, it's not strange that the volunteer reviewers want to see strong indications of notability and a very neutrally written text.

Looking at the current draft, some of the issues are

• that the first three sentences have an abundance of sources, much more than necessary to verify the minimum of facts – sources are there to verify the information in the article, and (to take an example) you don't need three different sources to verify the simple statement that they are located in Mumbai
• that the second and third sentence say almost exactly the same thing, with multiple sources, which comes across as promotional (as well as redundant)
• that the rest of the draft has only one source which is an entry in a list of resources, and which supports almost none of the content, so overall the draft suffers from both too many and too few sources
• that not all of the sources meet the requirements for reliable sources
• that most of the sources are not presented in a useful format – for instance "Frost Research Link" and "PharmEasy analysymason Link" contain almost none of the necessary information. A reference has to identify the source clearly, tell the reader what kind of source it is, and give enough information for the reader to be able to find the source themselves. WP:CITEHOW has more info on what a reference should include. --bonadea contributions talk 13:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing detailed feedback. The page is fixed as the suggestion. Please let me know if I need to improve anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4052:2E8C:B62A:B100:48BC:33FD:44BD (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was talking about my page you moved to draft space, Teenage pregnancy in fiction. I know it says indiscriminate list with a poorly written and unsourced introduction, but Teenage Pregnancy in Wikipedia is the only page that I found, but not in fiction because of a lack of sourcable websites or something. There's a TV Trope website over there, which includes "Teen Pregnancy". If not, I'm not really sure. Can you explain this? Or should I re-edit the whole thing like this one, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_mortality_in_fiction It's a good thing if you can or someone can help my page Fortunewriter (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maternal mortality in fiction is not a good article to use as a model, because it is largely unsourced and has almost no actual content except for the list of works. Look instead at Parallel universes in fiction; as the maintenance templates there say, it also has problems, but at least it is an encyclopedia article and not just a list of works picked without any clear rationale. An article about the concept of teenage pregnancy in fiction will need to be based on reliable scholarly sources (not newspaper articles or other non-scholarly works, and definitely not TV Tropes which is just a wiki), and it should discuss the concept of teenage pregnancy and how it is treated in different kinds of fiction, in different languages and cultures, and perhaps also through history. A list of works is the least important part of such an article. --bonadea contributions talk 16:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I renamed from "Teenage pregnancy in fiction" to "List of fictional characters featuring teenage pregnancy" for good, because I was wrong about the title and it does not given some history or notable works about teenage pregnancy. Just a list of example or works or whatever is, like this one List of autistic fictional characters. There will be chance. Fortunewriter (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I want a Fair consensus , on the edits on West ta East, I have and am one who has paid and continues to pay a membership fee on YouTube to watch the show and use that as my understanding when making edits BUT the facts I bring from there main SOURCES such as ABC News, which you have not clearly read and are being adamant on knowing the show better than the fans and a loyal viewer who pays a Gold Membership fee on YouTube to watch it BEFORE you make another edit on this show, Kindly go WATCH and pay for it. it seeming very biased and ignorant & I ask people to judge fairly and undo the edits which @Bonedea has done. Thank you, Stay Blessed.123.208.65.230 (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Wikipedia articles are based on secondary sources, not on what individual editors know based on their own experience. Again, articles in English Wikipedia are written in English. Again, random bold text is against the Manual of Style. Again, Wikipedia cannot be used to promote anything. --bonadea contributions talk 20:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I wanted to clarify, why did you write that the two siblings move to Afghanistan, when no sources state that? are you personally connected to the subject? just a curious question, Please clarify? I read the sources and it is not mentioned but if you're connected to the subject, then makes sense! ( in regards to West TA East)123.208.65.230 (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources say that the show is about them moving to Afghanistan, which is why the Wikipedia article also says so. Please read the response in the discussion you started at Talk:West Ta East. --bonadea contributions talk 19:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bonadea,

My name is Ethan, and I am a graduate student at St. Johns university in Queens. I recently attempted creating an article for one of the directors of the firm I am currently an intern at because I have to write a report on a mentor from my job. I choose Mr. Coulter and asked him to participate in an interview because he is very experienced and does the same investing as I. I am sorry for phrasing the article in a biased manner I do look up to Brett after my interview and I understand that some information may have suggested I could be him. I am not. But a lot of my classmates interviewed men already on wikipedia such as Howard Marks (investor) and I would like to create a page for Brett for educational and reference purposes I am not being compensated even for my internship lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SJUstudenteditor (talk • contribs) 08:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Why is it that singers like Ghazal Enayat and the majority of afghan celebrities articles are sourced with YouTube videos or other kinds of sources but you’re so strict when it comes to Ramiz King or West Ta East? Due to Afghanistan having lack of media it’s hard to prove notability of them when they’re so famous within the country ? Einstientesla (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Einstientesla: Wikipedia articles should be supported by reliable sources that are secondary, independent, and provide significant coverage of the topic. If there are existing articles that don't have such sources, the solution is to either improve the sourcing or nominate the article for deletion (if sources can't be found). --bonadea contributions talk 17:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But how did they get away with YouTube links? What can you do it it’s for a country that’s war torn and lacks media houses? Is it not biased and unfair for those artists and new celebs? Einstientesla (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you are aware of articles that don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for sourcing, please do something about those articles, but do not use them as models for new drafts. --bonadea contributions talk 20:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn’t the draft fine the way it is? Because me and several other users googled the game GTI Edition 35 and there are only 3 sources found (see here).

MegaMack02 (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MegaMack02: No, the draft is not fine, and it cannot be accepted without reliable, independent, and secondary sources that talk about it in depth. Please have another look at the replies you got in that thread. No sources = no article. --bonadea contributions talk 18:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you‚ Gerda! Very much appreciated. --bonadea contributions talk 08:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi i posted about Alireza Amirghassemi if you check this person has Farsi language wikipedia and i want make english language for him why you removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiava (talk • contribs) 09:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiava: I didn't remove the article, but I moved it to Draft:Alireza amirghassemi (I see that you have also created Draft:Alireza Amirghassemi). As it says in the notice on your user talk page, the article would need reliable sources that meet these criteria. I have added a note to the draft page explaining why the sources in the draft are not sufficient. I also removed some sources that are not acceptable in a Wikipedia article. English Wikipedia and Farsi Wikipedia are separate websites with different policies and guidelines. That there is an article in another Wikipedia version doesn't mean that there can automatically be an article in English Wikipedia about the same topic. --bonadea contributions talk 09:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention, and if there is no problem, leave the page at the top, and I will add more resources and ask Iranians living in the United States to help complete this project on request. Is there a way for me to click on this page? This page is not complete and others can help complete this project? Kiava (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it back to draftspace, where you can work on it. --bonadea contributions talk 09:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no violation of copyright all sources provided by me are isbn certified and availiable on public platform like google , user peacepks has been faking his edit summaries please go through the history of the page to verify whether I'm right or wrong AuthenticSources2546 (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

U can also go through the talk page of the admin bishonen. Ive given my points there. AuthenticSources254622:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admin u can also go through the history of karan caste page as well he mass removed content and sources from there also, also added bad emojis in the page, he has done this to a lot of other pages also go through his history you will get to know, admin sitush had also warned him a long time back regarding his disruptive edits in caste related pages go through his talk page you will get to know. AuthenticSources2546 22:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He was adding all kinds of emojis in karan caste page which is already extended protected due to past disruptive edits, should such activity be allowed in a reputed platform like wiki. He also removed sourced content and sources from bhoi dynasty page and routray surname page u can go through the history of these pages to verify AuthenticSources2546 22:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Combining sections about the same topic. --bonadea contributions talk 07:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bonadea, the user user:AuthenticSources2546 is adding regular & large copyright material in Wikipedia in Khandayat page. His Id already received 3 copyright violation warning from different admins including you & Bishonen. But still he is reverting Admin's edit each time & restoring his own copyright violation. To confuse Admin about his past, the above user simply deleted all the copyright violations warnings from his talk page. Seems like he don't care about admin & wikipedia policies. He is also engaged in personal attacks to prove his point. Can you please take some serious action ? Thanks Peacepks (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop it you have been completely exposed, dear admin u can go through my points in admin bishonen's page, I've already mentioned my points there and I've also mentioned my points in the above section, this user has faked his edit summaries just go through his edit history you will get to know AuthenticSources2546 03:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admin u can also go through his talk page where admin sitush had warned him of citing sources badly and representing the information contained in them in their distorted manner ignoring neutrality, u could go through the history of khandayat page he has done the same thing there alongwith removing reliable sources and creating fake summaries to confuse other editors. AuthenticSources2546 03:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AuthenticSources2546: There is absolutely no doubt that you have added copyrighted text to the article, and restored it when it was removed (after you had been warned about copyright violations).

Compare:

From the source: "Because of frequent wars and foreign invasions a large number of tribals and farmers were recruited into the army which led to the formation of new sub-castes as [sic] Khandayats and Paikas." (Aspects of Socio-cultural Life in Early and Medieval Orissa, p30)

Your edit to Khandayat (caste): "Due to frequent wars and foreign invasions a large number of tribals and farmers were recruited into the army by the rulers of various dynasties this led to the formation of new sub castes as Khandayats and Paikas."

From the source: "Although a numerous well-defined body, the Khandayat do not appear to be really a distinct class. The ancient Rajas of Orissa kept up large armies and partitioned the land on strictly [sic] military basis. These armies consisted of various castes and races, the upper ranks being officered by men of good Aryan descent, while the lower ones were recruited from the low castes alike of the hills." (The Orissa Historical Research Journal, vol. 16 p22)

Your edit to Khandayat (caste): "Khandayats do not appear to be really a distinct class. The ancient rajas of Odisha kept up large armies and partitioned the lands on strictly military basis. These armies consisted of various castes and races, the upper ranks being officered by men of good descent, while the lower ones were recruited from the low castes alike of the hills."

These are two examples, the first two stretches of text I looked at. I am not an admin, but since you have posted this to Bishonen's talk page, she will no doubt act on it, and not in the way you'd prefer. --bonadea contributions talk 06:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, she did block you while I was typing the response above. --bonadea contributions talk 06:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: copypasting text (or adding a very close paraphrasing of the text) is still a copyright violation even if you include a link to the source. In addition, it is plagiarism. --bonadea contributions talk 07:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have made some edits to the draft (references), and replied to your comments at the draft help desk. Can you please move the article to the mainspace? Thanks!--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you posted this in the AfC Help desk thread as well; it's usually a good idea not to split discussions, so I'll respond there. --bonadea contributions talk 18:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I restored your edits to the x in y articles that removed the list of people but figured you might be interested in this PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not understanding, how to get reliable sources for this page. As per [WP:NBASE], https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Masayori_Shimura is notable. Should I leave this topic or how to move ahead? Lordofhunter (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lordofhunter: How does he meet WP:NBASE? The draft says that he was a sports broadcaster who reported from the Helsinki olympic games. It also says something that might mean that he was a basketball player, or possibly that he reported from a basketball game. But there is nothing in the draft that even hints at notability, and the four sources say nothing about him. In addition, at least two of the four sources are not reliable sources. Where did you get the info that's in the draft? None of the sources verify it. --bonadea contributions talk 11:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He was the member of Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame and notable as per the guideline. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft doesn't say that. And as long as there are no reliable, independent sources that talk about him, notability isn't shown. --bonadea contributions talk 07:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This source is saying he was the member. https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Masayori_Shimura. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot use the "bullpen wiki" part of Baseball Reference as a source. It's just an open-edit wiki that anyone can add material to; see recent discussion here. Given that I've removed that source twice from that article with clear edit summaries, I'm concerned that you're still quoting it. Kuru (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Better than trout. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :-) --bonadea contributions talk 15:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciated your prior review for Draft:Boho_Beautiful. Please check my resubmision and comments posted on the page. If you believe it still sounds like an advertising or does not have reliable citations, please post your feedback here and give me a chance to revise, before you decline it, because the review period is very long. Chessterb (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been declined again. You always have the option to revise, unless the draft is rejected. By submitting the draft, you request a review, and it would be a bit counterproductive to post a review on a reviewer's user talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 07:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi could you tell me how you determined these to be paid pieces???

paid promo piece in local newspaper

brief, paid promo piece in another local newspaper Chessterb (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bonadea, I appreciate your review of article about pakistani linguist Rehmat Aziz Khan, but I checked the deleted articles Rehmat Aziz, Rehmat Aziz Chitrali, and Rehmat Aziz GoldMedalist,]which were created from different IP address and not matched this IP, please check the IP address of the above two article and the IP address of this current article, the personality is notable, please search in google for more reference. thanks --¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.2.164 (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can you know the IP addresses of the users who created those deleted articles? As for Draft:Rehmat Aziz Khan, there is no indication of notability in the draft, and there have been several community discussions on the articles about him, all coming to the same conclusion. --bonadea contributions talk 12:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! In the edit summary of moving the article back to draft, you mentioned history of undeclared paid editing. However, you did not mention that in the AfC concerns earlier. The concern in the AfC is generally about notability. I have expanded the reception section, with citations to reviews. And I am sure you can see it is a mainstream Bengali film, released to theatres about a month ago, and has been reviewed in several newspapers/websites. Despite your concerns about history of undeclared paid editing, the film clearly meets WP:NFO. Please move to the mainspace. Thanks!--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's waiting for review. --bonadea contributions talk 20:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in a comment on the draft itself I won't touch it again, but if you look at the history, you submitted it a few days ago, and another reviewer commented that it was unclear how it meets NFO. Another editor, who had been creating and recreating an article about the film to the point where the title was create protected, moved the draft to mainspace without any discussion, and it was restored to draftspace by yet another reviewer, the day before yesterday. At that point it was not the best idea to move it back to mainspace again without addressing the reviewers' concerns. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 20:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "it was not the best idea to move it back to mainspace " (especially now that you mentioned concerns about undeclared paid editing), however it is quite unusual to have a released mainstream film, with reviews in several newspapers, to wait at AfC. The AfC has a huge backlog, and it is wastage of the limited resources for such a straight forward case to await review in AfC. While I am not familiar with AfC, I am somewhat familiar for AfD, and this article would be an easy keep in AfD (that is why I mentioned another contemporary film article, from the same director, in the AfC comments). I guess with the expanded reception section (with citations), a reviewer would be able to pass it.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bonadea your edits as the above section is a bit confusing to me. "in" or "at" the box office? We have seen uses of "at the box office". In line 60 of your revert makes "performances. and" which is a straight sentence mistake. A full stop ends the sentence, so it should be either "performances. And" or "performances, and" by grammar. "lent her to" used if "lent or to (someone)".
Further, I didn't understand the reason of removal of the book source "Hollywood Album : Lives and Deaths of Hollywood Stars from the Pages of the New York Times" as I added it as supporting source because the existing source is about her dead which the content of the article doesn't claim. I use citations as per article's content claim. With good faith, Regards _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 01:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "at", not "in".
• "performances. and" is of course incorrect, but replacing the full stop with a comma merely replaced one ungrammatical sentence with another, equally incorrect one. When there are lots of minor, erroneous changes made in the same edit, it is usually better to simply revert them all instead of sinking time into restoring them one by one, even if that means that one single correction is reverted. But in this instance, it wasn't a correction anyway.
• "lent her to" used if "lent or to (someone)" Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say. In any case, "her" is absolutely necessary in the sentence – Paramount did not lend 20th Century Fox to her, they lent her to 20th Century Fox.
• About the source, again I don't understand what you mean. The existing source supports the content.

Regarding your addition of sources: I assume that you have full access to all books you use as references, and don't just look at them in Google Books? --bonadea contributions talk 01:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You noted here that this was mostly a copyvio (I added a RD template) but the user creating it seems to have a problem with adding copyrighted material to WP. See Green Soldier Mime as well. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Nituparna Rajbongshi Please review this draft and tell me how to improve it in order to make it reliable and to meet Wikipedia criteria of notability Baruahranuj 08:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the disruptive editing that you accused me of? Please provide a screenshot. I haven't edited anything.

I am forced to report that the admin Acroterion, under which you also wrote on my talk section, deleted my clarification request on his page. Ddelete013 (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ddelete013: "Editing" does not only mean "editing articles". In your user talk page comment immediately above my WP:AGF warning, [1], you said You do know that what you are doing causes severe damage to the Wikipedia project, right?, which is a blatant failure to assume good faith. Acroterion would have had every right to remove your post to their user talk page, but as a matter of fact, it was another editor who did that. --bonadea contributions talk 07:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re-pinging @Ddelete013: as I failed to sign. --bonadea contributions talk 07:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea: as per your revert with this diff, I'm just curious why you didn't check the refs properly. The Rediff.com ref clearly says, "Security forces gunned down three unidentified ULFA militants at Namati area in Nalbari district of Assam at around 1 am on Thursday. The forces recovered one assault rifle, one Chinese pistol and an Austrian grenade from the slain militants.". And the Indian Express ref says, "The officer-in-charge of Nalbari police station Keshab Phukan was placed under suspension on Friday in connection with the death of an ULFA cadre's mother during a raid and search operation conducted in her house at village Namati in Nalbari district on September 8. and The Tribune (Chandigarh) stated, "Protests are rife in Assam over the death of a 60-year-old woman, mother of a ULFA militant, after she was allegedly beaten up by a search party of the police and CRPF personnel at her residence at Namati in Nalbari district.". As a senior editor, you know that 3 refs are enough to prove a claim. Even so, you have removed my edit with the statement, "not supported by sources, and sources don't discuss the village". My concern is, as you know about Indian media, they have a habit of informal reporting style which is known to you all, but they have written reports happened in that village. What else can be expected for that one-line sentence? _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 19:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NeverTry4Me: I'm just curious why you didn't check the refs properly. I am curious why you would make that assumption. I have read the references. Two of them were about the killing (in 2007) of a woman in Namati, who was the mother of a member of a militant separatist organisation. The third one is a timeline of incidents involving the organisation, and contains the sentence "July 23 [2008]: Three cadres of the ULFA’s ‘709 battalion’ are killed in an encounter with Army and police at Namati village under Ghograpar police station in the Nalbari district."

The sentence I deleted from Namati (which was not a revert) read as follows: "Namati village carries a history of being militancy affected area". Not only is that ungrammatical to the point of being difficult to understand, but it is not supported by the sources. The sources mention one fight between armed forces and militants, and one incident where a woman was killed by police. Neither source says anything at all about the village apart from mentioning the name as the location for the incidents, and neither source talks about the history of the area. We are not allowed to add original research based on our own interpretation of individual sources to Wikipedia articles. --bonadea contributions talk 20:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bonadea Thank you for the reply. I shall edit accordingly as per your assistance. Many more thanks with good faith. Sincere apology for hurting you though unwillingly. Regards- _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 20:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I was working on a draft article for ILENE at a steady pace that was not in the slightest bit ready for review/submission, when to my horror I found that after several days of me not updating the draft, a now deleted user @Ilovehistory16 practically hijacked the article, made unscrupulous "edits" that made no sense, and then randomly submitted an article that was not even ready for submission. Please advise on how I can prevent this from happening, or is this something to keep watch for? I also did have a question about sources. First, thank you for your feedback. This is part of the reason why I had not yet submitted the article for publishing. Aside from the interview with Brackenhoff, are iMDB credits not permissible sources? And are blogposts from Bandlab's marketing team automatically discounted, even if they are the officiants of the contests mentioned in the article? The goal is when I think the article is ready to submit even if it is a basic knowledge panel, that more fans can later be building to and adding to and hopefully not damage the article like this Ilovehistory16 user. I do believe the artist in question is noteworthy but am trying to make sure I don't lose my draft just because of frivolous actions. thanks. 247ice (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I forgot to link the draft in question, @Draft: ILENE 247ice (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir or Madam,

Natalia wonders why the atricle about her is declined. She believes she is well-known enough to have a page on Wikipedia.https://thehimalayantimes.com/multimedia/russian-actress-model-natalia-dvoretskaya

She continues her career in America, acting in American films. Also Martini is an international Brand, as well as Carte Noire. And she faced these companies with international actors such as Frédéric Diefenthal. The Himalayan Times which had the articles about her is an English-language broadsheet newspaper published and distributed daily in Nepal. And let's not forget that not all English-language magazines and newspapers duplicate their printed versions on their websites. Here is the information all in english about American Series with Her and all awards [2]https://www.blackbettyseries.com/?fs=e&s=cl

Kind regards, Yury Voropaev

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my errors in the Nicolette Lim article. I think I was just doing too many things at once and goofed up. Also good call on removing some of the other sources.

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 21:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bonadea. Thanks for your comments on my submission for CityAlight. I'm wondering if you could have a read through the following I wrote on August 2 (on my own talk page) and let me know your thoughts.

I've actively sought to provide as many objective facts as I possibly can. I have also sought to implement any and all suggestions you've made in each rejection, and, most recently, visited the Wikipedia Help Channel (at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IRC_help_disclaimer) to ask for suggestions as to how I can improve it and get it over the line. They agreed that the article was relevant and notable, but that I would probably need to add some additional independent sources to get it over the line. I spent over an hour doing additional research this afternoon and sought to add independent sources, so I find it a little discouraging to read your somewhat disaparaging (although I'm sure not intended to be) comments about the quality and perceived biases of the article. If you could provide me with some concrete suggestions for areas I could fix, rather than simply leaving comments such as "This gets more promotional with every resubmission" and "there's still no sign of notability", that would be greatly appreciated. I would also appreciate it if you could inform me what you mean by "independent sources," as my investigation into Wikipedia (and my conversation with those on the Help Page) all suggest that sources such as the Eternity News article (an independent News site that often critiques unbiblical Christian bands) would be a reasonable independent source, yet when added, you suggested that I had added "another non-independent source." I appreciate the hard work you do in keeping Wikipedia clean and of a high quality, but I hope you can see my intention here is to provide an article on a relevant and significantly recognised band within the Christian community, so if you have any tips on how I should go about this in order to get it approved (for no benefit of my own), I would greatly appreciate it. Lukaku's First Touch (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lukaku's First Touch: Well, I would suggest that you start by fixing the citations as explained in my comment on 2 August. The list of references has to include information about the titles, authors (if named), journal, publishers, dates etc for each source – more information here, and here is a guide to adding citations. Of the references in the current version of the draft, two have approximately correct titles ("About CityAlight" and "2020 Dove Awards Winners List" – that's the kind of minimal variation that I think is OK), while the rest of them are descriptions of the sources rather than the source titles. There are two reasons we need titles and authors, page numbers, journal titles, issue numbers, etc: first, it tells the reader what the source is without making them follow a link to another website just to understand what the source is, and secondly, it makes it possible to track online sources when the original URL goes dead. (For sources that are not online, it's maybe more obvious why the information is necessary, but it's true for sources available on the web as well.)

The notability criteria for organisations explain that sources have to provide significant coverage of the organisation. That a source is reliable is always essential; in order to show notability, sources need to be independent and secondary, but an independent and secondary source that only mentions the organisation in passing doesn't indicate any notability – that is the case with the Eternity News source.

And it is a little troubling that you don't recognise the fact that when a draft is edited to add text such as "...the musical simplicity and versatility of CityAlight's music has sought to enable any church to pick up and play any CityAlight song", and to add promotional quotations in the first paragraph, that does make the draft more promotional. The draft is waiting for review, in any case – I simply posted a comment on 2 Aug, I didn't decline it. --bonadea contributions talk 15:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, I recently seen you reverted the edit for ‘Dil Nawaz’ which is incorrect,

You can even see the cast list on google and check yourself, thank you Mynameismaria (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you Google ‘Zain Ullah movies and TV shows’ , you can see you have revert edits that are correct and been deleting them for no reason Mynameismaria (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I supplied the reasons in my edit summaries. Ullah's name had been spammed across multiple articles. In Dil Nawaz, the blatantly false claim that Ullah had a starring part had been added to the article – none of the sources mentions his name. The same thing had happened in several other articles, and I spent some time yesterday cleaning that up. WP:CASTLIST says that every single actor in a large cast should generally not be listed in the Cast section of an article. If the sources don't mention Ullah, there is no reason why Wikipedia would do so. And a Google search is not a source. --bonadea contributions talk 11:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering why you reverted my attribution of the reference to the specific individual who made the statement in the book. It references his personal statement, not a conglomeration of scholars. There may BE a conglomeration of scholars that believe this, but that is not supported by the reference. Cheers, LovelyLillith (talk) 03:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it made the statement utterly misleading. It's not exactly a controversial or unsourced claim that Biblical scholars in general do not view Genesis as a historical document. There might be individual fringe scholars holding the extreme view, but that's not a discussion that belongs in that article. If Wikpedia were to say "This individual scholar does not believe that Genesis is a historical document", it would seem as if that were not the mainstream, generally accepted insight. We don't want to introduce weasel wording like that, any more than we would say "This individual scholar believes that water molecules consist of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom". --bonadea contributions talk 12:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I sent a request to change my name, I'd like if you could accept it. E.S. Cohen - א.ס. כהן (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@א.ס. כהן: I'm sorry, I am not a steward or global renamer. If you have requested a change of username, no doubt it will be processed by someone who has the relevant rights, but I'm afraid I cannot help you. --bonadea contributions talk 12:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I noticed your comment on my talk page claiming my edits were "disruptive." First of all, please explain how reverting my own edits is "disruptive," because that doesn't seem to be the case on any policies or guidelines I researched; second of all, I was trying to retract my stupidity of trying to claim the former ownership of a currently blocked account; and third of all, I knew I wasn't gonna get a response because NeilN doesn't appear to be active on Wikipedia anymore, so I thought there was no use in waiting any longer.

Learn from my mistakes (Talk:AustinShow#Continuous vandalism + User talk:jpgordon#"Content disputes are not vandalism."), do your research before blindly claiming that reverting my own edits is "disruptive." Thank you. L337m4n (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may have forgotten the fact that you changed your user name since you made those talk page posts. This is an excellent example of why edit summaries are helpful – if you had used the ES to mention the fact that KullyKeemaKa is your previous user name, it would not have been an issue. So, yes, I made an error, and I'm sorry about that, but you could take this as a reminder to use edit summaries.

The fact that you were claiming to be a new account of an indefinitely blocked user would still have been a bit problematic – I'll respond to your user talk page explanation about that. --bonadea contributions talk 08:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bonadea. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Harry Grammer, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: give them a chance to rewrite it, this is a draft after all. Thank you. GedUK  10:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you recently declined an Article submission for the draft formerly titled "Violent Extremism in West Africa" on the basis of "recentism and original research".

- I've incorporated a suggestion from another Wikipedia editor, and modified the title to make the article scope more well-defined and in tune with its content. Are there still any recentism-based concerns on your end?

- About your "original research" comment, the basis of that opinion is not clear to me. Every point made in the article is backed by a citation. There are no novel claims or inferences made which are not already present in the cited sources.

If you insist that the article still contains original research, I'd like you to point out what specific parts of the piece contribute to this.

Thanks.

Tamedu quaternion (talk) 08:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This [3] may have been a joke in your direction. Kinda funny. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had a comment that said the Lovable Curves page was spam? I am a bit lost, if you could help I would appreciate to learn more about your point of view. AWiseWoman22 (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AWiseWoman22: Well, the entire draft Draft:Lovable Curves is promotional. Have a look at What Wikipedia is Not, in particular Wikipedia is not a means of promotion and Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. I removed some blatant spam in the form of promotional links to her social media accounts, when I was fixing some content that didn't meet Wikipedia's policy for biographies about living persons, but there is really no part of the text that is written from a neutral point of view. Since it doesn't look like she would meet Wikipedia's notability criteria anyway, it looks like it would be a waste of your time to keep working on the draft. --bonadea contributions talk 15:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. I appreciate the help. new to wikipedia and working on tiktok stars that are up and coming. AWiseWoman22 (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I was able to interview her. I am still new to wiki. AWiseWoman22 (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know what wikipedia is. I interviewed this person for biography and I added citations and links about family and places she mentioned and all of that. Plus, I want to specialize in tiktok stars. TikTok is the most popular and famous social media in the entire world. It is ripe with notable people and this one in particular I felt had notoriety as much more than a tiktokker but an actual author of a book, a musician public speaker ect... how is that not notable? I don't know anyone who has been successful at any of those things, do you? AWiseWoman22 (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:AWiseWoman22. --bonadea contributions talk 08:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issea sa is a registered company, is authorized and recognized to offer legally degree on line. How can a diploma mill be? See www.zefix.ch search issea Accreditation in Switzerland is a quality certification that is not necessary to be authorized to award university degrees. Issea is authorized and can confer university degrees even without accreditation (see sentence of the federal admininistrative court published in the article paragraph 2.1)) None of the news in the article mentions an independent reliable source. much published information is inaccurate or completely fictional contributions come from puppets of Giuseppe Macario who is cited on the net as a serial defamer and also boasts of being a professor at the People's University a competitor of Issea. Certainly it cannot be considered an independent reliable source. Elvirabet (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bonadea,

Thank you for your comments with regards to the draft.

Would you be able to clarify what is meant by ‘reads like an advertisement’?

The draft is written to demonstrate notability, although of course I will change the tone accordingly.

Without wishing to contradict, the topic does meet notability criteria for both an academic and a musician, as already stated, with none of the sources being produced by myself.

Kind Regards,

J.H. JohnEricHiggs (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bonadea, just a heads up I have done some checking of the references used in the draft and noted all those that fail verification (which is a significant number and in some fairly blatant ways). I've left a note on the talk page, as well as comments in edit summaries. Melcous (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Melcous,

I think I see the problem now. If you are looking for something wrong you will find it. It's called a self-fulfilling prophesy. Please don't take editors of biographies in Bad Faith.

All the best to both of you,

J.H JohnEricHiggs (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10 months ha passed since everything i posted was remobed. Please read this paper i found today (at least the introduction) ^[1]

Cubic general sieve has at least two importamt logical gaps, according to this paper.

Tne first one is that it only works with a special class of primes

The second one is you need to solve a certain Diophantus equation, the general solutions of which are never known.

These two simple facts described in the paper are enough for any reasonable person to conclude that cubic sieving is basicaly an experimental algorithm and you should never tbink of it as a real algorithm.

I wrote general number field sieving is quadratic number field sieving, because everything else are basically unproved conjectures from unverified simulations.

Simple fact checking is an important part of any editing activity, and sbould never be deleted ( as long the checking is simple enough for everybody, or at least for every experts), if you think that wikipedia should not be a fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquahabitant (talk • contribs) 06:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your changes to Morgan Obenreder. Been many years since I created that article. Are you planning any further work on it? -- James26 (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Qhqofficial2022 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Dog Home Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

At present the name of the NGO and their work was covered by all the media all over India, and I am now the new editor, I thought I should make a page with their name, but the draft was made, so I tried to edit

Kindly do the needful

Qhqofficial2022 (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,

I saw that you declined my draft for IShowSpeed. I do not know what happened but I'm seeing that a user removed all the reliable sources I cited in the article and replaced them with random non-reliable sources before disruptly copy and pasting the source to the main space. For reference here was the article at the time I submitted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:IShowSpeed&oldid=1113654452. Would it possible to rollback to the version I created so I can continue improving the draft. It sucks having worked so hard on research and creation just for someone to randomly destroy it and get the draft declined. Célestin Denis (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the user basically ruined every chance IShowSpeed had of getting an article by creating the article before the draft got reviewed. Célestin Denis (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Célestin Denis - On the one hand, you can restore an earlier version of Draft:IShowSpeed. If you need advice or instructions on how to do this, you can ask at the Help Desk (or maybe the Teahouse, but this is slightly more advanced than what the Teahouse usually helps with). On the other hand, because IShowSpeed was being repeatedly recreated in article space, the title has now been salted. It sounds as though the subject has two groups of proponents, and you belong to one group who are trying to improve the references, and the other group was simply trying to restore the article. So you can discuss with the other proponents. In the meantime, however, the title is locked; if you want the title unprotected, you can discuss with the locking administrator, TomStar81, but I am not sure how likely he is to be interested in unprotecting the title. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bless the tag team. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bonadea,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Hi, you reviewed Draft:Kim Gordon (designer) on October 6th. I took into account your suggestions and the suggestions of the previous reviewer and made some modifications. I was wondering if you'd be willing to take another look and let me know if you think more improvements are needed. Thanks! Chagropango (talk) 10:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bonadea.Hope you are keeping well. It has been sometime since I added additional references in this article and requested you to review it so that I can move it to main space under your guidance. Iam working in the process of cleaning my draft space. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 13:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bonadea:.Hope you are keeping well. I observe you have rejected this article saying not sufficient reliable sources whereas I have added enough references as per Wikipedia policies. Request you to kindly guide me so that I can do needful. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gardenkur: thank you for your message. I'm afraid I can't really do more than what I already did; I posted a fairly exhaustive source analysis on the draft page and in the thread you started on the AfC help page. The draft is in the exact same shape as when it was moved to draft space, in terms of sources (there are no independent sources, and nothing to indicate notability). It is a little disheartening to see that you re-added multiple copies of sources that had already been removed once or twice from the draft, including sources that we discussed here. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 14:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bonadea. Thanks for your detailed reply. Sorry saw you message and remarks in the article late. Will try to evaluate the references and will get back to you. Have a nice day. Gardenkur (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bonadea, just a note since I moved Draft:Morag Park to mainspace after you'd declined it at AfC. In practice, pages on biology faculty seem to get kept at AfD if they have at least a few papers (as senior author) with 100+ citations on Google Scholar or SCOPUS. Park easily passes that bar. As far as I know, that norm isn't documented anywhere (hence my discomfort with WP:NPROF, but oh well), but it clearly seems to be a bar used in AfD discussions. If you disagree with the move, feel free to bring Morag Park to AfD. I hope all is well! Happy editing, Ajpolino (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:MC Stan is not draft which I created I had submitted this article by mistake earlier.instead of draft of MC STAN Which I created Jisshu (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a suggestion on how to report what appear to be two different editors submitting slightly different but almost the same versions of probable UPE? I am thinking of Draft:Alice Blue and Draft:Alice Blue (company). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: – I wish I had a good answer for that! WP:COIN doesn't quite cover this situation, I think, because there's a question of multiple users as well as of COI/UPE, and opening an SPI for multiple users who are not actually pretending to be the same person is also not ideal. (There is a third user, who created User:Swathi4352/sandbox about the founder of Alice Blue, and I suspect that's another account from the same paid outfit.)

Any talk page stalkers with a better response than mine? --bonadea contributions talk 12:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to WP:COIN, although I have had inconsistent experience with COIN. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Bonadea:. Can you visit my talk page and look at the revision history? I received an odd message. I removed it, but it is still in the revision history. Thank you!Cwater1 (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bonadea, for my draft article, I provided reputable Filipino news sources. I am convinced, Geslani is relevant for enough to give him an article in wikipedia. When the child has been good (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi bonadea i dont believe the writing i put in his article was not of nuetral wording as it is factually correct and you may have seen recently the wikipedia page got brought up early on the latest joe rogan podcast where there are claims that the current iteration of the article is far from nuetral so i wanted to help both sides of that argument come to a middle ground. if there are no changes that can be made then i think a fair and reasonable explanation could be made. Badgerosman (talk) 12:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Badgerosman: thank you for your message. There is a very strong consensus in favour of using the term "pseudoscientific" without softening it as a descriptor of Hancock. This has been discussed repeatedly at Talk:Graham Hancock, and that is also the place to bring up any suggested changes. However, unless those suggested changes are strongly supported by reliable, independent sources, they will not be carried out. Be aware that Wikipedia does not want to present every possible point of view about every topic as equally valid (more on that here); in addition, saying that "Hancock's critics call his theories pseudoscientific" is arsy-versy – he is criticised because the theories he proposes are pseudoscientific, the theories are not identified as pseudoscientific because he is the one who proposes them. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Badgerosman Joe Rogan promotes conspiracy theories, etc. Doug Weller talk 19:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His Netflix series has started so expect more on him and his books. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh joy! Oh rapture unforeseen! Well, forewarned is forearmed. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 21:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recently submitted the draft. AGS Transact Technologies is a payment solutions provider in India. The company offers cash and digital solutions to merchants, banks and corporates. The company was incorporated by Ravi B. Goyal in 2002. Ken Research Report 2021 recognised them as the second-largest company in India in terms of revenue from ATM managed services under the outsourcing model and revenue from cash management and the number of ATMs replenished. There are three business segments under which they operate, namely: Banking Automation Solutions, Payment Solutions, and Other Automation Solutions for Retail, Petroleum, and Colour Sectors. These services are offered through its wholly-owned subsidiaries Securevalue India Ltd. and India Transact Services Ltd. Ongo & Fastlane are two consumer brands owned by this company. In 2019, AGS QRCash, an industry-first QR code-based cash withdrawal feature on ATMs was introduced by AGS Transact Technologies.

I got a response from your side stating the below reasons for the decline of the article. This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements), reliable, secondary, strictly independent of the subject Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

I tried researching this from my end but couldn't. It would really be a great help if you could please elaborate the above reasons in more simpler way. RiddhiG123 (talk) 10:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RiddhiG123: First and most important, please address the questions and issues raised in the thread User talk:RiddhiG123#Managing a conflict of interest. (Please respond to those questions there, not here, and do that before you make any other edits.) Second, have you in fact followed all the links in the decline notice you quoted above? Which part of the information on the linked pages was hard to understand? --bonadea contributions talk 10:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bonadea, thank you for your feedback. Your review is very helpful for us and we appreciate the time you dedicated to our text!!

1. Concerning the first point of criticism: We can change the part on the Rome Declaration and write an new text in a neutral style. (We have learned how to check for copyright violations in the Wikipedia tool)
2. Concerning the second point of criticism: We can delete the part “An effective outcome of geography education” as this might sound a little essay like.
3. We have one additional questions: Which other parts of the text should be changed to make our version acceptable?

For us the Wikipedia entry on “Geography Education” is very important therefore if there is the possibility to get in touch with you (maybe even by zoom), we would appreciate that, since we are not experienced in writing Wikipedia entries.

Nina Geo Edu (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Edu: thank you for your message. First of all: when you say "helpful for us", "we can change the part", and so on, who is "we"? Each user account at Wikipedia should only be used by one individual, who should not share their login information with anybody else.

Second, about copyright – do not focus on what the copyright violations tool tells you. Use facts, not sentences, from the sources. The copyright tool shouldn't really be necessary for an article writer, since you already know which sources you use! Please read and make sure you understand this explanatory essay. There is a very good external resource on avoiding plagiarism, here, which you can also have a look at. Until these two points are addressed, you should not make any edits to the draft or any other Wikipedia pages. --bonadea contributions talk 13:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

My submission was rejected. What can I do to improve it?

Thank you : ) Leeleehall (talk) 10:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Leeleehall: thank you for your message! Your draft, Draft:Alastair and Fleur Mackie, was not rejected, which would have meant there was no option to revise and resubmit, but it was declined because it wasn't adequately referenced. All information in a Wikipedia article, in particular information about living people, must be referenced, with citations to reliable sources. The citations (footnotes) should be placed right after the information that the source verifies. Your draft has a list of sources, but no citations. In the decline notice is a couple of links to guides on referencing: this one is a good place to start.

Another important thing: to show that a topic is notable as Wikipedia defines notability, an article about the topic has to be supported by independent and secondary sources. One of the sources you listed in the draft, this one, is their own website, and two of the other sources, this and this, use text that was taken from the website (hence not secondary). This looks like it is a text written by them, so it's also not secondary. Hope this makes sense, --bonadea contributions talk 12:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help me, Draft. Blackmountcom (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blackmountcom: I'm afraid the draft you created, Draft:Akilbek Allan, has been rejected because Allan is not a notable musician. He might become notable in the future, but at this time there can't be a Wikipedia article about him. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have added some source to the article please look at. Tell me what sources are needed for the article to be relevant in wikipedia, Thank you Arman Jandosov (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was wondering if you can also restore a deleted article on another wikipedia. Arman Jandosov (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://kaa.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akilbek_Allan Arman Jandosov (talk) 06:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alaukik Rahi - Wikipedia only 1 reference and reliable source of this article, please help me Abhinav1976 (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhinav1976: I'm sorry, but I really don't think that individual is notable, and I believe the article should be deleted. Are you aware of any independent reliable sources about Rahi? --bonadea contributions talk 13:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no sir, I don't know about him more Abhinav1976 (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have broken 3RR but I want you to remove that wikilink you just added after you reverted my edit.

SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 11:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SpyridisioAnnis: Which wikilink? The one you were removing in Governor General's Award for English-language non-fiction? I asked you to self-revert your 4RR edit, but since you did not do that, and you also did not give a reason to remove the link, I went ahead and restored the link. Please read this post from me on your user talk page. If you think there is a problem with the wikilink, use the article talk page to explain your reasoning, and don't edit the article to remove the link unless other editors agree with you that the link is problematic. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 11:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 11:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. I really tried. 3RR report filed. --bonadea contributions talk 12:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have one quick question, what was the copyright violation for? ShowingGreed (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ShowingGreed: thanks for your message. The text removed in this edit was a copyright violation, as it was taken from this Washington Post article with very minimal changes. Please have a look at this explanation. --bonadea contributions talk 12:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yemsquare (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mike Afolarin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, this article was first declined and I need to update the reason for the decline, but it seems another editor works on it without reflecting the reasons behind the declined and the article is now rejected, what can I do?

Yemsquare (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yemsquare: as explained here and here and on your user talk page, there cannot be an article about Mike Afolarin at this time. He is not notable. If you want to edit Wikipedia, your edits can not be about Afolarin. If your only reason to edit Wikipedia is to create an article about him, I'm afraid there is nothing you can do here. You will simply need to go to other websites, where promotion of people is allowed. --bonadea contributions talk 13:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prachi Vaishnav - Wikipedia this article is notable how. used Sourses are TellyChakkar and Times of India. why not me. I use also Tellychakkar, Toi, and Patrika news. Draft:Devaksh Rai - Wikipedia

Abhinav1976 (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]