User talk:Bonadea/Archive 17

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Possible compromised account. Thank you. clpo13_(talk) 17:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not a compromised account, just another user who's gotten tired of being harassed by vandals and socks... Thomas.W ^talk 17:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Upp med hakan

Ta "ledigt" ett tag, men kom sedan tillbaka igen, det fungerar för mig. Vi kan inte låta knäppskallarna vinna... Thomas.W talk 17:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Perhaps this will help. Regards,

220 of ^Borg 18:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Userpage protected

The extensive history of vandalism to your userpage, including recent vandalism by multiple people, has prompted me to semiprotect it indefinitely. If you disagree, let me know or leave a note at WP:RFPP asking for unprotection; I can't imagine an admin rejecting such a request. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Presskr,Inc

I suspect sockpuppetry, but in absence of evidence to confirm it the speedy tag I placed on this article was legitimately contested. I'll remove the speedy nomination again, but later today will raise an AfD and SPI investigation. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presskr,Inc and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Legacy2015. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hadmatiya JN.

Cleanup? Xx236 (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes? My edit involved copyediting, removing language errors, and moving the relevant information from the rather clunky and ill-formatted table to the article text itself. --bonadea contributions talk 11:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Is one short unsourced line "an article"?Xx236 (talk) 11:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC) I assume that JN mean Junction, but it should be explained.Xx236 (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Please continue writing this controversial stub.Xx236 (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Article editing

Article editing must be done to improve an article and not to kill it . I found you have made several editing in an article Kimberly Jesika i created removed links and made many edits. Do you think its ethical for you to do it ? why are you always against my edits ? I feel so low :(

Always :) (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to save the article, because it was bloated with too many references - a couple of them were the exact same article published in two different sources and several of the others were trivial or unrteliable sources. This was all explained in detail in the edit summaries. You have been blocked for using a lot of sockpuppets so you probably won't see this, but for the record, I see absolutely no ethical problem with improving articles. --bonadea contributions talk 12:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Christmas Wishes

Christmas wishes Always :) (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

why reverted my edits in "Physical exercise".

hi.. uve just reverted my edits in "Physical exercise". i wud like to know the reason for it. i do think that an imp. article like it needs a gallery.

As a matter of fact I didn't revert it, because somebody else got in before me (I didn't notice that, which is why I posted the warning on your talk page). A gallery of very similar images does not add anything to an article - most of the images you added were of people in the US military, and all of them were Western people doing the same kind of fitness exercises. Besides, the division into women and men seems uncalled for (though that could be fixed easily enough in itself.) No article "needs" an image gallery, although images can often improve an article - however, again, having lots of images of what is essentially the same thing is not that useful. As I mentioned on your user talk page, the best place to discuss this is on the article's talk page. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 12:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Sales revision edits.

Hello I'm new to updating articles and I wanted to know why you reversed my edits in 'sales' so I can improve my edits. Thanks. User talk Amcquade

Disturbing

Whatever your name is why don't you just let me be. I've been noticing from the way you revert my edits recently that you seem to keep me in mind for no reason. I work diligently to verify my facts and all I get is a revert which I can't just understand. The worse you'd do is to block me which I'd gladly accept as I need time for my acadics also no thanks Mahveotm (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Mahveotm (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I started replying to this, and then I noticed that the editor has been blocked as a sockmaster so I don't think I'll waste my time on it. Violating NPOV is one thing, and it's an easy mistake to make as a new editor (harder to explain away when it's done for the third time after explanations have been provided, but never mind) but if somebody doesn't understand that actively pretending to be several different people and posting misleading information to discussions is against Wikipedia rules, then maybe editing Wikipedia is not the best hobby for them. --bonadea contributions talk 11:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Procedural closes at WP:AfD

Hello Bonadea. I just wanted to let you know that I have NAC procedurally closed two AfD's that you opened: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uroosa Qureshi and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiba Ali. It turns that both were the creations of a ban-evading sock, and so were speedily deleted under WP:G5 by Admin Sphilbrick. Just letting you know as a courtesy. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

hi, can you pls not to delete my wiki article ikeymonitor ? I want to keep it as we can see some similar articles like mSpy Mobile Spy are listed without problem. And things are different as more notable sources added. Wendysms (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

discuss

	need to discuss
	hi, can you pls add my skype aobosp or tell me your skype so we can discuss more?　we really want to keep our article. Wendysms (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Replaied on your talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 15:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links

Thank you for your kind, polite and knowledgeable response. Bonadea, I appreciate your reply. But I am not trying to advertise, I am not affiliated with any other website also, but what I found to be added to the article, I added it. But I still feel that the image is important to added for more understanding of the visitors.

Bonadea, as you might know that "Picture speaks more than Thousand Words", So I try to contribute the image which I found suitable and understandable. Still, I feel that the image should be included in the article. But if you don't won't, I still appreciate and remain contributing to further articles. Thank you once again...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterwoodwilson (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your kind and courteous reply. Wikipedia can sometimes seem like a jungle of rules which might appear to be a bit arbitrary. When it comes to adding external links, the relevant guideline/policy is here, with a handy list of the kind of links that is generally not allowed here. The image you added in this edit has an inappropriate external link in the image itself, and there was also a link in the descriptive text. It doesn't matter whether you are personally affiliated with the website or not - the URL cannot be added to Wikipedia articles as it violates several of the points in the list linked above. Hope that explains matters somewhat. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 15:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Bonadea. I am delighted to here from you. Thank you advising me about the article writing. one thing, if you can help me then please tell me how I can whitelist a website from where I am taking the content and putting it in the citation. Kindly help me. Regards, --Peterwoodwilson (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Peter

Thank you once again bonadea for your help. I would like to know how can I whitelist a website. Please help me.

You seem to have found the page to post your request - you are unlikely to get the request granted as it is not an appropriate link to add and it has been spammed quite a bit, but it is not my call to make. In any case, please stop posting links that violate the external links policy. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 19:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bonadea : ok bonadea. I understood now. Thanks for your information, now I will not contribute here anymore, even will not donate as I decided first. I will go to other website for it. thank you for all your support and respect.

Deletions

Regarding Rahul khismatrao, the author has also created The Theory of Creator (Book), which I've tagged for deletion as well.— TAnthony^Talk 17:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Doris Torres

I declined your speedy deletion under A7, as I believe that being a news anchor for notable is a credible claim of significance. However, since it doesn't have any reliable sources currently, I've BLPPRODded it. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

(General note: Adding spam links on Comparison shopping website.)

Hi

I will keep this conversation very short and crisp. I know that I am a new contributor in wiki and hence you are far superior than me, when to comes to wiki policy and guidelines.

I could see that, you have removed the entire update that i have put on the above mentioned topic, not just a few links. Then you mentioned that you have removed one or more external links, as they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia and your subject line says "Adding spam links on Comparison shopping website".

Please let me know, you criteria for self declaring, some relevant links as spams ?

As you have a quite deep expertise in wiki, as contributor and moderator, similarly I do have deep ( may be deeper) expertise, in comparison shopping engine concept, as i have spent around 10 years on this field and i know very well, that all the external links, that i have provided are valid and upto date. Please let me know the grounds against which you have blindly declared this update as spam ??

• I agree with Bonadea that the text was promotional (as well as poorly written), seeming to plug something called AWK Solutions. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Drmies

Thanks for your clear communication. Yes, it is true that i have added the name of the company AWK Solutions, but that was not for plugging in something. Infact, in the first instance, i haven't included the company name, as i have read and studied their articles on many publisher sites. Just to make the update more appropriate, I included, the company name, as i saw similar company name reference at various part of the topic ( e.g pricegrabber.com, trade doubler, etc). It is absolutely fine if i have to remove the company name.

let me know, if i can still submit the update or not.

Hi Bonadea

Thank you for letting me know about the deletion. I am new to editing in Wikipedia and I am wondering if may you have any suggestions about how I may change the content of the source referenced?

Thanks again Mrchet12 (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Superbowl

Thank you for removing Superbowl entries from year articles. (I only noticed it because 2003 was missed.) Technically, though, WP:RY only applies to 2002 a later. There was a separate consensus at WT:YEARS that Superbowls (and possibly other annual sports) are not to be listed unless otherwise notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thank you for letting me know! --bonadea contributions talk 13:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Photo booth edit

Hi,

you removed a modern photo booth source i had under the photo booth wikipedia article.. How can I fix this so it can be posted?

This was not posted in error I wanted to reference a modern photo booth something that was not shown to our users in any of the photos.

thanks so much!

Photo booth edit

Hi,

you removed a modern photo booth source i had under the photo booth wikipedia article.. How can I fix this so it can be posted?

This was not posted in error I wanted to reference a modern photo booth something that was not shown to our users in any of the photos.

thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimjom (talk • contribs) 20:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

edit deleted

you called my edit 'personal analysis', it's not true . i have given references. Pls check if for yourself. How do you allow people to post such pages in the first place...look at what the person who created the page had written . You have no problem with that ??? ..please read the new paper articles on Rohith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jithmatt (talk • contribs) 21:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

deleted edit

thank you for all the help ! and thank you being understanding.These are tough times for Indian Academia.

copy right violation

can you tell me where exactly is the copyright violation ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jithmatt (talk • contribs) 09:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bonadea

Hi there I have just created an account on wikipedia and made some edits under cuckold and hotwife , a few days ago. They were taken down because I did not include the correct referencing format. I read up on how to include the proper citation and then made the edits again yesterday and included the book reference using what I believe is the correct citation system following the one already in exsistence on the entry. You have removed my edits ( i think ), can I ask why ?, as I do not want to get into one of these edit wars. If I am doing something incorrectly I would rather know why. .The book reference I had included is not by an eroric author, it is not fiction, it is a work about the psychology of erotic personality types.Hope to hear from you so we can resolve this

Thanks Earlymanbc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlymanbc (talk • contribs) 12:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting

Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

This here was very nice of you.

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Crap

Oh man, I'm so sorry about reverting your edits, here[1]. My page jumped when I clicked, and I clicked on rollback. Boomer Vial^Holla 08:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries :-) I suspected that was it. It has happened to me, too. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 08:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Need Help

Hi Bonadea, I am trying to update my chairman current designation, here is the page Kushagra Bajaj and official web url [2]. What document or url you need so that i can update the correct information. User talk:Pankaj.kumar89 —Preceding undated comment added 07:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You cannot copy text straight from the source - that is a copyright violation. It is also not appropriate to add all that text about who the person's grandfather is in the first sentence, unless the grandparent is the reason the person is notable (as might for instance be the case for a royal baby). An encyclopedia article is different from a promotional biography such as an official company page. I also note that you say "my chairman". Wikipedia requires that all editors disclose any external affiliations they have with the subject of pages they are editing. There is more info on your talk page. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 07:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Bonadea Sir

Respected sir ,I need your help about the article sreehari, in september 2015 dr sreehari created world record and his name was entered in Guinness book of world records in medicine , especially in anesthesia . He is the first person in the world induced anesthesia in 250 persons at a time .This news was published in many Indian news papers ( top newspaper in India Hindu , and Deccan chronicle) , and many other newspapers in world.I think this record is notable .Because this experiment will help many doctors to save life of patients ,especially who may get anaphylectic reaction with anesthetics.i am requesting you very much for this help...Dr Priyaka MD ,INDIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarikumari100 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Short answer: No. Longer answer: Articles about Dr Srihari / Sreehari have been deleted several times. Y. Srihari was deleted after a deletion discussion and such articles cannot be recreated; if new information had emerged since the discussion was closed, you could talk to the deleting administrator about it. I'll save you the waste of your time, though: dr Sreehari, or Srihari, is still not notable according to Wikipedia's definition, and this was very obvious from the most recent incarnation of the article, Sreehari. Even if he had a Guinness World Record, that would not be sufficient in itself; it's very interesting to note that the official website for Guinness Book of Records, where all records are searchable, don't mention this alleged world record anywhere. But that's beside the point. It is true that a brief notice of the event where he used hypnosis on a large number of people was reported in The Hindu ; unfortunately, the fact that a few other sources reprinted that notice does not mean that it was covered by multiple sources (it's still the exact same text). Wikipedia cannot be used to argue in favour of a cause, and it absolutely cannot be used to report on experiments in order to make the results of the experiment more widely known. One doctor's personal opinion of what might be medically advantageous is not encyclopedic information.

If this wasn't sufficient, the fact that there has been a very large number of accounts used by the same person or small group of persons, who have disrupted Wikipedia by inserting this person's name into various articles, makes this a subject that will definitely be deleted very speedily on sight. Please stop wasting your own time and that of other Wikipedia editors, by not attempting to add any information about this person again. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 18:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Srihari

Hi mate Bonadea. The issue has become pretty frustrating now, even personal attacks have started. I don't know how to request it, but I believe it'd be good if all the pages be salted. This will ensure that no other new sockpuppets will re-create deleted pages. Or would it be better to leave them as honeypots? What do you think about this? Rollingcontributor (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Rollingcontributor:, and thanks for your support. I know I can come across as a bit prickly, but personal attacks always really get to me. I'm not an admin so have no say in whether pages are salted... in a way it might be good to have them as bait as you say, but I still hope that as many titles as possible will be salted eventually. And if the person is community banned, it will be a pretty strong signal to them that they need to stop. Or so we might hope! I liked the post you made to their talk page, by the way. Sorry it didn't make them stop and think. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 17:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah @Bonadea:, and thank you for the compliment. I do really hope the person stops their futile attempts. Let's hope for the best! Rollingcontributor (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Why is my achievement not on the website?

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/FAQ Why is my achievement not on the website? There are more than 40,000 current records in our database and we try our best to feature as many as possible online. We currently include over 15,000 records online which we update every week, so make sure to check the site regularly! Dr sreehari created world record recently,it will take some time to found at online or in book.Some more doubt , i know some Guinness book record holders,i found their articles in Wikipedia,only their notability form Guinness book, but in your answer you told that ,this Guinness record not eligible for notability ...,if you want details of this articles ,pl reply,i can send the detail.if you reply i can understand whether it is my mistake or not ...( Zaqwsxs (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC) )

The above account is blocked as a sockpuppet, but I'll answer briefly anyway:

• A Guinness World Record is not by itself proof of notability. Such a record can obviously be mentioned in an article about a notable person, if there are reliable sources for it, but nobody becomes notable only for being listed on guinnessworldrecords.com. Many record holders get a lot of press, and that might make them notable, but again that's a different thing. And if there are already articles about non-notable people on Wikipedia, that's no reason to create another one.
• Yes, a local edition of The Hindu had a very short article mentioning Srihari and the Guinness Book of Records claim. That is not significant coverage. The article was reprinted in other places, but it's still just the one source.
• The lack of verification at guinnessworldrecords.com was mentioned six months ago, in this deletion discussion (which I was not involved in, but I've read it now). Since there's been misleading claims in the many different versions of the article, for instance about a "Nobel Prize nomination" which wasn't an actual nomination, and a "hit movie" which was actually very obscure, it's going to take rather more than the word of the person himself in an article in a local edition of a newspaper to verify such a claim.
• Since the article was originally deleted after a deletion discussion, any attempts to create it again must start with a discussion with the administrator who deleted it. You cannot start such a discussion while you are blocked, however - see below.
• When you were blocked as User:Nsmutte you were blocked personally - this means that you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia at all, not with new accounts, and not logged out. The only way for you to edit is to get your original account unblocked, and for every new account you create, that becomes more and more unlikely. In fact, I'm sort of bending the rules by even responding to this - posts by sockpuppets of blocked accounts should be removed and not answered. But doing this might save time in the future. Please do not create any more accounts to edit, and don't edit as an IP. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblock

Regarding your note at WP:AIV regarding a potential rangeblock for suspected User:Nsmutte IP socks, I've soft blocked 121.100.143.0/25 for two weeks. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thank you for dealing with Nsmutte's nonsense. GABHello! 16:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciated. --bonadea contributions talk 19:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed External Link from "Online Presence Management"

Hello Bonadea,

Just received your message of removing my external link. I added that link because I found it to be the oldest mention of the term, basically coining it. What was the reason for erasing it?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.2.156.5 (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 14:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed External Link from "Grant(money) and Oral hygiene"

Hello Bonadea,

Just received your message of removing my external link. I just read the article and mention on wiki page. Is it wrong? I am not going to do that for SEO. What was the reason for erasing it? talk

I'll reply here, since you posted this as an IP so I'm not sure where to reply otherwise: The links you posted don't meet Wikipedia's external links policy, which is the reason they were removed. Thank you, --bonadea contributions talk 17:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Show me the point on Wikipedia's external links policy that my post don't meet the external links policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.32.199 (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiusdanu (talk • contribs) 17:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) At WP:ELNO you'll find several reasons for not linking to the site you added on Grant (money), which is the one I checked, the main ones being a) that the link doesn't add a unique and valuable resource to the article, and b) that it obviously was added only to promote the site. Thomas.W ^talk 17:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

All the article link that posted on wiki page contains related article to the topic. And you said it's not Unique and Valuable? Should i check it on copyscape to verify the that the article on the link that posted is unique? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiusdanu (talk • contribs) 17:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You wanted to know why it was removed, and I've told you why. You may not like the answer you got, or like Wikipedia's rules regarding external links, but that's not going to change anything. Both of the links you added were clearly inappropriate, and will be removed again if try to re-add them, or try to add similar links on other articles. Thomas.W ^talk 18:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you, judging by your contributions and talk page, have been spamming inappropriate links on Wikipedia for years, and have received multiple warnings for it, you ought to know the rules by now, so why do you ask? Thomas.W ^talk 18:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @Thomas.W: - that's exactly it. The link added to Oral hygiene had the same problems, and it was clear from a cursory glance that the two separate websites had the same creator (and the same type of autogenerated content with no actual value). --bonadea contributions talk 18:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Santu Sinha

	Santu Sinha
	i want to make a Wikipedia page about Santu Sinha, i have created previously but again again speedy deleted my page. please help me..... Santu Sinha (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 17:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed one or more external links added to the page Link building

Hello Bonadea,

I Just received your message of removing my external link. I added that link because I found it to be the best relevant post on High-quality backlinks. I think, you should keep my edited text and a link as it is. because it is deep on link building. Hope you'll check it again as a new reader who like to know more about link building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syabuzar (talk • contribs) 10:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I'm afraid that neither the text nor the external link added in this edit is appropriate for an encyclopedia. The article is not written for people who want to acquire more backlinks, and it's never ok to address the reader directly with "you" - nor is it ok to use unintelligible jargon like "link juice", "DA" and "UA". As for the external link, the website doesn't meet Wikipedia's external links policy, and in addition, it was linked in the running text, with the link text being SEO type keywords that have nothing to do with the actual target of the link, so there are several warning flags there as well. But note that the link could never be added to Wikipedia, regardless of what the link looked like, because it's simply not the kind of website that is a valuable resource for Wikipedia's audience. Thank you, --bonadea contributions talk 11:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and you also need to take a look at Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines, since the web page you "found [...] to be the best relevant post on High-quality backlinks" was apparently written by you. --bonadea contributions talk 11:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Troll

Would you like me to semi-protect this talk page for a while, to hinder the persistent troll who keeps posting here? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @JamesBWatson:, thank you for this, and yes, I would actually like a brief semi protection. Not sure how long would be appropriate - the last semi protection was one day IIRC and that didn't help much, so maybe three days? Thanks again, much appreciated. Even though it's quick enough to revert the trolling, it's a bit mentally exhausting to be the target of it... --bonadea contributions talk 16:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

There's no good answer to how long to protect in a case like this. Anything less than a month or so is likely to have limited effectiveness against the troll, but even a short block runs the risk of collateral damage on innocent editors. What I have done on my own talk page when this sort of thing is happened is to protect my talk page for a fairly long time, and use a second talk page at User talk:JamesBWatson/Open for anyone who can't post to my main talk page because of the protection, with an edit notice attached to my main talk page telling people they can edit that second talk page. That actually works very well. Theoretically, there is no reason why the troll can't just post their vandalism to the second talk page, but they never do. I can only assume that they don't get any satisfaction from posting nonsense if it's on some obscure page in the background where most people won't see it. Anyway, for now I've protected the page for three days, since that's the time you suggested, and also because I don't like protecting user talk pages for longer than about that much time unless there is an alternative such as the one I mentioned. If you would like to put something of that sort in operation and have protection for longer, let me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with JBW about creating a second talk page. I protected your page for five days; if you do create the second page I'll be happy to lock it for a longer term. I'm traveling and checking in intermittently until Sunday, but if you ping me I'll take a look when I get back. :-) Katie^talk 23:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yowza

Hello B. First let me way that I an sorry that you are having to put up with this trolling. OTOH having an article created using your username is an achievement that I haven't seen before. I did get this a couple months ago. Best regards to you and enjoy the rest of your week in spite of all this. MarnetteD|Talk 22:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @MarnetteD: :-) I appreciate your support very much. And yes, at least this troll is creative! It's hard to understand how they can be this focused on disruption, but people are... different. Ah well. Hope you're having a good week. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 09:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Amway

Hello, I would like to ask you with whom I should reach the consensus? Do I really need to get "approval" of somebody else, when I present a fact (that is actually already contained in the article elsewhere) and back it up with reference?

How was the consensus reached when the original edit (20th January 2016) was done? I only see two users that made the decision and agreed to present only negative information without the proper context. I disagree - so we should revert the article back to a version before the first edit by Arthur Rubin regarding this issue was made, shouldn't we?--Historik75 (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI

If you want people to only go to your main account, you can use redirects. Just redirect your phone account pages to your main account pages. If people click on a link for the phone account, they'll automatically be re-directed to the main account. Check out Help:Redirect. Hope this helps. - ^theWOLFchild 20:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I am aware of how redirects work. I chose not to redirect the pages back in 2011 when I thought I would be using the other account; since I never did use it after the first few days or so, it would have been pointless to redirect the pages after that. To do so now would be caving in to the troll, which I refuse to do. I just revert, report (sometimes), and otherwise ignore them - I've spent too much time trying to explain why they are violating WP rules. --bonadea contributions talk 09:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand your reasoning, but... they're your pages. Sorry to hear you're having a hard time with some trolls. Good luck to you. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 21:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Landland444

Possible sock...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No doubt at all. :-/ (I reported them to AIV.) --bonadea contributions talk 14:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes... should have said probable! Good result. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Now for something completely different... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

A man with a tape recorder up his brother's nose! (Ooh, that's why they all sound exactly identical, of course!) sorry, it's 8pm and I've been teaching for a couple of hours straight so I might be a bit silly...--bonadea contributions talk 19:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

In regards to the article on Mircea Itu

Thank you, User:Bonadea. I've noticed that you work at Uppsala University and that you are Doctor of Philosophy, just like the academic on which I wrote, who is also Doctor of Philosophy. Would you please comment as a professional to the contributions of the subject in the fields of study, which are his as I have no authority in them, such as: history of religions, philosophy of religion, hermeneutics, Indian philosophy and religions, Oriental philosophies and religions? I appreciate your comments on notability in regards to this subject. Thank you.

72.94.238.35

I see he just trolled your TP under a new guise; but tell me, who is this Tim Sheridan he keeps banging on about, and what's his beef with him? There only seems to be one user called that, and he seems in good standing... *confused* cheers! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you there- found User:Timothy Sheridan all on my own! Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem at all! If you want to know more about the background, here is the community ban discussion for the user, who also used the account User:Abmin, as well as many many IPsocks over the last eight years or so. He has a history of making rather far-ranging claims ([3] being one example out of many) and of responding with hostility ([4] is a typical case). If you look at the contributions of the members of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Timothy Sheridan... well, actually, don't start doing that, it's a bit depressing really. I have some of his favourite pages watchlisted so I generally revert his rants rather quickly - I guess I won't be getting a Christmas card from him any year soon :-) Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 12:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Quite a piece of work, that one. I have renewed a range block to complicate his life a bit. Favonian (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Mange takk, Favonian. --bonadea contributions talk 12:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Selv tak! Det var så lidt. ;) Favonian (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Blues Pills

I'm not comfortable with Wikipedia. Maybe I can send you the translation by email ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indavoid (talk • contribs) 20:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 20:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)