User talk:Bonadea/Archive 25

Welcome back

Hello B. I am glad to see your name on my watchlist today!! You are an asset to the 'pedia so whether you edit a lot or a little your efforts are always appreciated. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Thank you so much for those kind words - I really appreciate it! Work is crazy busy right now (the new semester starts on 1 September, so lots to get ready before then) which means that a) I don't have much time for WP but b) I need to focus on something other than reading lists and timetabling every now and then, and a little bit of WPing is how I've been doing that... Again, thank you, and see you around the encyclopedia! --bonadea contributions talk 09:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

You are most welcome B. MarnetteD|Talk 09:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

...For reverting the.... fun edits (lol)... left on my user talk page. I also wanted to message you to say hi! It's been awhile since we've talked! I hope you're having a great day and that life is treating you well. Please remember that my user talk page is always open to you, and you're welcome to message me there any time you need or want to. I'm here to help, and I'll be more than happy to do so. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Putting this here...

...so I won't forget it. It's like Greta Thunberg says - when trolls bluster and lash out at you, you know you are doing something right. (No other comparison intended. I can't hold a candle to Greta.) --bonadea contributions talk 10:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Would you like it revdel'd? Or do you take proper pride in that troll's bluster? Bishonen | talk 19:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC).

Tushar Dutta

Hello.. please don't change the following edit on Tushar Dutta... i'm his disciple and i'm providing nothing false informations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srgmpdn7notes (talk • contribs) 18:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Replied on your user talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 19:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Bonadea,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
• Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Not English

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

Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019

• Wikimania
• We're building something great, but..
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• A Wikibrarian's story
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you remember...

This guy? I couldn't believe the headline I found this morning: [1] (NSFW). Jesus Christ... Home Lander (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, wow, there is a blast from the past! That web site won't display for me (it tells me I'm in the wrong part of the world) but I can read the URL and I guess that's enough to get the gist. What a guy. --bonadea contributions talk 07:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Rits

Hey guy what's up The article needs not to be deleted as all the citations are reliable and due to lack of further citations on the web I've cited them all. If required I'll try to improve as better I can]

If you don't delete it It'd a great favour

Regards

SHISHIR DUA (talk) 06:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source. Blogspot blogs are not reliable sources. All the autogenerated sites with titles like "height, weight, boyfriend" are unreliable. The Deccan Chronicle is more reliable but it is written like a promotion piece, and in any case it is the only independent source in the article. The article about the coin documentary does not even mention her in passing. If there are indeed no other sources, it is much too early for an article about her. --bonadea contributions talk 06:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

PewDiePie

Hello,

inappropriate parameter? Unnecessary? that's your opinion but not mine. It's important for me! I don't break rules :)

+ I have created a extra row. That's called "extra_information" and that's a extra information!

Jicco123 (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, "extra information" is an inappropriate parameter as the label is very vague. "Unnecessary" is, as you know, not just my personal information. Several different editors have reverted that addition. Do not restore it until you have discussed it on the article talk page (not other users' talk pages!) and made sure that there is a consensus in favour of your change. See WP:BRD. --bonadea contributions talk 20:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Box Office Bomb

I don't mean any offence with this, but I genuinely don't think you understand what a box office bomb is. Pal Pal Dil ke Paas suffered an 83% loss against its reported budget. As a percentage, this is one of the highest in Bollywood in recent times. So by the very definition, the film is a box office flop, disaster, or bomb (whatever you'd like to label it as). Where does your confusion stem from? Are you looking for a source that literally calls the film a "box office bomb"? TransportationPHD (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I (and others) have been saying. Feel free to bring the matter up at the article talk page, presenting the sources that explicitly refer to the film as such. It is not appropriate phrasing in Wikipedia's voice, but it would be possible to say "reviewer [x]/source [y] referred to it as a "box office bomb"". But again, that discussion should be held at the article talk page. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 20:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Bonadea,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 811 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

• It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
• It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

• Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
• Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Seasons not version

Hello,

headline says all! Seasons are not version (google if you want) but okay.

Jicco123 (talk) 11:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

This is with reference to Mixer (service), an article about a game streaming platform, where the term "season" was added without any explanation, and made no sense in the context. I guessed that "season" referred to different versions of the platform, which would have been consistent with the (unsourced) claim of new features added with "Season 2". We can't require that our readers should have to search the Internet in order to understand what the terminology used in Wikipedia articles means. If the term is added again, please add an explanation of what it means (if not versions, then what??), and sources. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 11:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The Seasons are like "Service games". The features come over the time. I don't have sources only in german. But I don't add that again. If someone interested in the streaming platform, then he can click the link.

Jicco123 (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you check the site for mistakes? When I have made a mistake please tell me!

Jicco123 (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, please understand.

Hello, I should probably explain the situation better, since you're coming into the middle of it and there's been a lot of lies and deceit in a particular user's harassment of me. I'm addressing the misguided revert you made on the "Nocturnes (Debussy)" talk page. Every time someone reposts that thread, they contribute to the harassment and slander of me. You're the third person to do this in the past hour I think. Here's the history.

AnUnnamedUser had been harassing me. I didn't report it, I just dealt with it myself. At one point he tried to divert a thread where people including me were having a perfectly reasonable peaceful conversation. AUU's diversion was intentional, designed to deplatform. He posted something and signed it with my user name, making it look like I was saying or responding to something I wasn't because I didn't write it. He actually took a previous post of mine in another thread, modified the words, and presented it in this new diversion thread. This of course is a complete violation of WP rules. I had the right to delete it and I did.

He then engaged in an edit-war, constantly reposting it and changing the post each time. Finally he stopped and went away. But the next day he was back and restoring it again and even added a "reply" to this fake post of "mine". The reply was insulting and more harassment.

A lot of other things happened which I won't go into here, but suffice to say:

1. I have the right to delete damaging, slanderous (libelous), and harassing posts about me,

2. I have the right to delete fake posts that make me say something I didn't,

3. I have the right to delete my own posts (which this at least "appears" to be),

4. I have the right to edit my own posts,

5. I have the right to delete other people's posts on my own talk page for any reason at all, and

6. I have the right to not have the same person "replying" to something I don't want to say, for everyone to read and think God-knows-what about my character.

To clarify: all that was in the ORIGINAL thread this guy created was a faked post from me, making it look like I was responding to his DRN notice. The "notice" was as bogus as my reply. I certainly had the right to delete it and I did. He kept bringing it back and changing it and adding to it with more harassment. Gerda Arendt replied to it before I could delete it again, but she doesn't mind. So you have to understand, I'm still trying to delete the original forged post, that's all. Maybe I shouldn't even put a blurb in there explaining what happened to it... I think I'll get rid of that (or I could put a link to a copy of this explanation). I could even post a request to have entries in the edit history removed (not sure how to do that)... I may have to do that eventually, but it'd be nice if this all calmed down. Chuckstreet (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I have read the thread very carefully, post by post. There is no forgery, no slander, and no harassment of you. Moving a post you had made to a new section, whil clearly stating that the post was moved (together with the surroundig discussion) is certainly not "forgery". I can understand that you would want to distance yourself from the post in question as it was really rather unpleasant in tone, but that does not change the fact that you did post it in the first place. Now please stop edit warring over this. AUU has offered to discuss calmly and peacefully, so why do you not take them up on that? --bonadea contributions talk 09:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

You will stop posting a fake post about me. If it is my post I have the right to delete it. If it is not my post but has my signature forged on it then I still have the right to delete it. We're having a conversation in that talk page. Your edits are DISRUPTIVE. Do not edit in that talk page again. Chuckstreet (talk) 10:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It is not a "fake post". You do not have the right to delete other users' posts, nor your own posts to article talk pages when there are valid responses. Your signature is not "forged". The post you made and signed was moved to a different section, which is allowed per WP:TPO. Best, --bonadea contributions talk 10:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar!!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 14:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Path slopu: Thank you! This made me happy :-) --bonadea contributions talk 12:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

insight

Bonadea: You reverted my edits to the Psychiatry section of the Insight page because you said they sounded like they were not neutral. Yet you provided no explanation or evidence for that. I added the edits because the page as it currently is, is anything but neutral. The concept of "insight" in psychiatry is enormously controversial, highly political, and very polarized. If a person reads that page now, they get a highly biased, one-sided perspective. Even worse, an uninformed person would not even know the issue was controversial. I provided numerous scientific and legal sources to substantiate that there re different perspectives on what insight is in psychiatry, how it is evaluated, and "who" gets to determine who has insight and who doesn't. Essentially, I have tried to neutrally clarify that there is in fact controversy about this issue. The current text tries to hide and obscure that. It's as if the wiki page on Palestine failed to mention the existence of Israel or vice versa, and both failed to mention any conflict in the region. I request that you place that text back in, or provide a clarification as to how it could be better incorporated. Gabble25 (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Gabble25

@Gabble25: This should be discussed at the article talk page (Talk:Insight), but very briefly: the text you added stated as a fact that the concept is "a very controversial aspect of current mainstream psychiatry", but that was not supported by any sources (the three sources were from 1992, 1995, and 2003 respectively, hence not current, and none of the sources supports the general statement that it is a very controversial aspect). Claims about "lack of scientific rigor" have to be attributed – making such an assertion in Wikipedia's voice is not neutral. And using a paper from 2007 which discusses 25 legal cases in Victoria, Australia, to state (again in Wikipedia's voice) that "the idea is [...] frequently brought over into legal contexts" is also not neutral, and the text is not supported by the source.

Again, please use the article talk page to discuss this issue. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 10:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Reverting

Uh hello?!!? Can you explain as well why you told me to explain this edit you mentioned at my talk page? Cheers! CentralTime301 21:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Please keep our discussion in one place and don't post your answers here – since I asked you a question on your talk page, I have it on my watchlist. --bonadea contributions talk 21:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Afghan-Sikh Wars

How is it a "military stalemate" when the Sikhs completely destroyed the Afghans? Jaaandip (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The sources do not seem to mention that. --bonadea contributions talk 19:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Sock puppet Page Edit

Thanks for fixing my revert, i did not notice that the user used two different names to edit the page, so i though o was reverting both edits. Thanks! LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

No problem – I could easily have fallen for the same trick if I hadn't happened to see Sock 1 first, and then Sock 2. What busy little lives some people seem to lead. --bonadea contributions talk 15:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 36

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 36, September – October 2019

• #1Lib1Ref January 2020
• #1Lib1Ref 2019 stories and learnings

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Islam: The Untold Story

There is absolutely NOTHING "extreme" about the writer's views. They are measured and reasoned. Not liking an opinion does not make it "extreme".

The article had been extremely skewed to portray the reaction to the documentary as entirely negative, when it was not. I have not removed any of the negative opinions, although many of them are marginal, redundant and from 'organizations' that barely exist beyond an occasional negative press release whenever Islam is examined in the media. But the positive views need to be included as well.

To appease those who want it as negative as possible, I have allowed credentials of the documentary's supporters to be removed and other things that frankly shouldn't be necessary. And now to appease you, I will move the paragraph to the 'media reviews' section (since it is on an established political news website and is written by a published author and journalist) and shorten the quote, but skewing the article negative by repeatedly deleting writers who have spoken in defense of the documentary while leaving in literally all the negative comments, no matter how redundant or marginal, is not unbiased editing.Lilipo25 (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Your edits to Nathan Yau

Hello Bonadea, thanks for your edits to the Nathan Yau page. However, could you please clarify for me why you consider Kantar Information is Beautiful Awards and Fast Company's Design by Innovation Awards not notable? You removed their mentions from the article. I am only a young editor and only learning, but I consider them actually corresponding to the notability criteria and therefore deserving a place in articles like this, and that is why I especially want to understand your arguments. Or maybe you will agree they are notable. They give recognized acknowledgement, are widely covered in the world media and in the internet in general, and so on. Please take a closer look and tell me what you think and how I should treat such awards and subjects in the future as an editor. Thanks. Avbgok (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Avbgok:, thanks for your message. Notability for awards is decided the same way as notability for any other subject – is there significant coverage of the award in multiple independent sources? Maybe the awards in question are notable by that standard, but I couldn't really find anything except press releases and social media posts from recipients. Are you aware of any sources covering either, or both, of these awards in some depth? Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 16:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Bonadea: for explaining. Well, I think I will look into the coverage for the second one deeper at a later moment, because what can be quickly found is from the winners or from the organizer, I see, so it is probably worth a closer look to double check and make sure it is or is not notable. As far as the first one, the Kantar Information is Beautiful Awards project is concerned, it seems to be quite more clearly notable; at least here are some of the seemingly independent sources that I have found it covered in: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. I guess they can be considered reliable and coverage in each significant. Just from the top of Google News search. What do you think? Avbgok (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy St Lucy's day to you too

• 
  Bishzilla Lucia
• 
  Cappuccino
• 
  Gingerbread
• 
  Saffron buns
• 
  Little helper bearing gift

Have the traditional Lucia fare: coffee, gingerbread, saffron buns. A Nobel Day urban legend (or possibly a true story) tells of an American Nobel laureate who was woken early in the morning by Lucia and her handmaidens, all in long white sheets and carrying candles, and was terrified, thinking it was the KKK coming for him. Bishonen | talk 16:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC).

Unprotected Amit Bhadana Article Title

Please Unprotected Amit Bhadana Article Title. Please unprotect the artical to make Amit Bhadana. Amit Bhadana is one of the biggest youtuber in India, comedy youtuber. If you want, you can also search on Google‌. There are many news articles on the Internet called Amit Bhadana. I am also giving you some reference from which you can see how popular Amit Bhadana is. Please, please let me create Amit Bhadana page. You will be very kind, please let me make this article Vikas.bikaneri (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I am not able to unprotect any Wikipedia pages; only an administrator can do that. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for the tip on my talkpage, I will use your idea, and have a happy new year! --Sir Bond 007 (James The Bond 007) (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks! And happy new year to you, too! --bonadea contributions talk 17:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

"Please do not feed the troll!"

I'm not sure I follow. Do you have more information for me? El_C 20:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a LTA who has been on a personal mission to harass me for three or four years. He will not use your good-faith post in his future gaslighting attempts. :-( --bonadea contributions talk 20:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

(He's been CU blocked.) --bonadea contributions talk 20:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

 Self-trout. Oh, religious name — that's right, sorry. I blocked that sock so many times already. They just usually say Bonadea something-something Catholic. Total mind melt on my part. El_C 20:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Wot, @El C: you don't keep track of the minutiae of all the sockmasters all the time? :-) No worries, and sorry about my rude "feeding trolls" summary – I reacted a little too sharply there. Happy holidays, if you celebrate! --bonadea contributions talk 20:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Bonadea, happy holidays to you, as well, and here's wishing you a great 2020. Also, just a quick note that this time, I remembered! Best, El_C 20:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well B. MarnetteD|Talk 17:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Thank you! Much appreciated. All best wishes to you, and thanks for being an excellent Wikipedia friend! --bonadea contributions talk 20:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You are most welcome B and thanks for your kind wishes in return. MarnetteD|Talk 21:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hey! Just reading this again and realised you thought I was talking to you (at some point). I was replying to the editor playing devils advocate regarding the 11 years of age issue. Just wanted to clear that up. Thanks for your input there! Robvanvee 18:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Peace Dove

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎ 11:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Merry!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Bonadea, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Happy Holidays

Hello Bonadea: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Aryan790 talk page

Hi Bonadea, why did you remove your messages to this user? The reason I ask is because I thought you posed reasonable questions to them. S0091 (talk) 23:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message and your kind words. I thought so at the time but apparently I was wrong and their behaviour was fine. Since I still can't understand why they were right to blank the sourced content without discussion, it's better if I back off and let people who are more competent do the work. --bonadea contributions talk 00:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Bonadea -- I looked at the situation when I saw things were getting a bit heated; it took some work but I've added an inline citation to the Glottolog entry (diff). I agree that the behavior of the user is questionable at best. Hope this helps! –Erakura^(talk) 00:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I see they are now blocked which was probably the inevitable end either way. S0091 (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Please help me understand why the wiki I submitted has been deleted (twice with the same reason)

Hello, you were the admin who deleted the wiki I submitted twice. The reason for deletion is section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

I must admit that the first wiki I submitted was written in an objective POV. But this time, I wrote it in a neutral POV, as per wiki suggestions. I also asked opinion from someone with a fresh perspective towards the subject just to make sure I did not wrote it subjectively.

Can you help me understand why it has been deleted this time and what can I do to have the article approved?

Also, I hope I had this chance to tell editors my intention of creating a wiki for someone, but to share, I'm trying to make a wiki for the subject because he is a dating coach and we wanted to have him on Wiki for people to verify his credibility. He was mentioned in several sites/magazines that are credible and was featured in a news program so I think it is fair to have his name on wiki as well.

Looking forward to hear from you. Happy holidays!

Ohjesabee (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and did not delete the sandbox page. I nominated it for deletion because it was promotional, and an admin deleted it because they agreed with my assessment – there is a bit of leeway in user sandboxes, some content that would not be appropriate in an article can be acceptable there, but in the case of blatant promotion even a sandbox page is eligible for speedy deletion. You may have believed that the second version was neutrally written, but at least two Wikipedia editors (I, and the deleting administrator) found it to be one hundred percent promotional. In addition, I'm afraid I must tell you that from what I remember of the draft, the individual is clearly not notable enough for there to be an article about him in Wikipedia. Wikipedia can never be used to create notability (and "credibility" is not a factor) so you should turn your energies elsewhere to promote him. (Remember that if there should be an article about him, he and people representing him should absolutely not create or edit it, and it would need to include all criticism and any less flattering information about him as well. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a marketing tool.) Finally, as you represent the person you are writing about, you need to read and comply with this policy in case you decide to create another draft. You will have to do that before making any other edits to any Wikipedia pages (including talk pages, the Teahouse, etc.) Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 09:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

My mistake for tagging you as the deleter as I know only a few technicalities/deletion process in Wiki yet. Please understand and know that I read as many wiki articles as I could before drafting one. I won't appeal to your nomination, it is deleted anyway. But it is still unclear to me how the subject isn't "notable. I have read your guidelines of notability. I thought he fall into the category of WP:ANYBIO? Also, I am not paid to specifically create a wiki for him nor I am using wiki as a marketing tool. If knowing the subject personally is a big factor to consider whether the subject is encyclopedic or not, please let me know. I just wish his name is listed as one of the dating coaches you currently have. Or if he will ever be on it. Ohjesabee (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, I did go through some of the wikis you proofread and I think I understand why the one I made is tagged as promotional. Thank you and happy holidays! Ohjesabee (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Responded in the Teahouse thread so as to keep the discussion in one place. --bonadea contributions talk 12:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Hello Bonadea: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Rajesh khanna

Rajesh khanna was a playback singer and his record is still not broken and because these are facts dont make changes. PrinceAnand2003 (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Great – please provide your sources for the playback singer information! And note that the "unbroken record" text is promotional, not informational, and does not belong in the lede. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 15:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

If ‘unbroken record’ is promotional pls visit amitabh bachchan's page and just count how many promotional or puffery statements are made. Pls make changes in them too. Secondly, if we do not use the word unbroken record, how will it convey that this rexord made by him is still not broken which is a info and given in citations also. Pls reply ASAP. PrinceAnand2003 (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Please engage on the article talk page where there has been a discussion about this. Yes, there are other articles about actors that are promotionally written. That has no bearing on the article about Rajesh Khanna (which is very promotional). --bonadea contributions talk 09:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

At last pls tell that how to convey that his record is still not broken by anyone which is a fact not a promotional phrase. PrinceAnand2003 (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Please engage on the article talk page, where is is explained that including the information is in itself promotional. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 09:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear bonadea, I am not edit warring (as far as I know) but simply just adding content which I think is needed.I have given my time and soul to this article even before you came on it. I have spent months in perfecting this article, correcting spell errors linking the words,reserarching and citing vital info etc,etc: And I have exlpained you several times my understanding but nothing works through.

AT LAST:IT WOULD BE BETTER IF WE BOTH BE AWAY FROM THIS ARTICLE AND WASTE OUR TIME AND ENERGY ON IT FROM NOW Thank you PrinceAnand2003 (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You are repeatedly restoring contested text to the article without engaging in discussion – that is the definition of edit warring. To retiterate, point by point, why the text which you have added many times is not acceptable: The "unbroken" text is not acceptable because it does not follow Wikipedia policies. This has been explained several times. The lede is too detailed as it is, so adding further details such as the BBC documentary (which is mentioned in the article body) is not acceptable. This has been explained several times. Details with no sources about how many films he made with other actors should not be added at all. This has been explained several times. If you disagree about e.g. the BBC documentary – ok, that's fine, but do not just restore it without going to the talk page and getting consensus for it first! I have given my time and soul to this article even before you came on it. Hmm. Which account did you use then? Because the account you use now was only created in Augus 2019. And I have exlpained you several times my understanding but nothing works through. That is known as "other editors not agreeing with you". When that happens, you can't ignore it and force your text through. You are using Wikipedia to praise your favourite actors and pad their articles with hyped text and tons of detail that make them completely inaccessible. But I will assume good faith and take you on your word, when you said just now that you will not edit war – so I'll remove the policy violating text again, and if you wish to discuss that or have the policies explained again, please come to the article talk page and ask. Thank you for agreeing to do this. --bonadea contributions talk 16:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Cirticism

Upon your recent message me to me, I note that part of what you entered stated that "though those doctrines [Referring to personal/religious beliefs] may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.". Given I was making my edits on the article about a religious document, correcting them to match the views of those that use that specific document. I assumed that was included under an "appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.". Especially when considering that my edits were information provided from a class specifically about that specific document, and numerous personal studies of the document, I assume correcting "modern scholars" to "secular scholars" to show the clear differentiation between the two, so that new readers would not assume the "modern scholars" were referring to biblical scholars (As they clearly were not). If attempting to clarify the difference between the two is somehow pushing my opinion, I would appreciate an explanation as to how they are, rather than a copy and pasted paragraph designed with anti-theistic sentiment (Which to note, is an opinion in and of itself). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaxorian (talk • contribs) 21:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Vaxorian: Thank you for your message. I did not in fact post the message you are responding to here, but I will make the observation that "secular scholars" is misleading and in fact incorrect, when talking about Biblical scholars. You also added hedging expressions that might mislead readers. Since several different editors disagree with your phrasings (as evidenced by the fact that other people have also posted to your user talk page about this), you will need to use the article talk pages for the articles in question, to present your proposed changes. Please remember to include reliable independent sources for your proposed edits. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 21:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

About BB13 Page

Sir I am trying best to keep page as right & correct as possible but other user is making many errors for that reason I have to revert it. Kaustubh42 (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Sir if I have made any mistake. Further I would not repeat it. Please sir give me one chance. Kaustubh42 (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Women adopters

Hi Bonadea,

Thank you for your input.

I appreciate that asking if there are any women adopters could be considered sexist, I just thought I'd ask.

I couldn't tell whether most of the adopters were male or female, hence the question. There's a whole etiquette here I need to learn. Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Maryanne Cunningham: There isn't really a particular etiquette as such, it's just that very few culturally-specific things (such as what is appropriate to talk about) can be taken for granted because we are such a culturally diverse group. Few people would, presumably, be offended if you asked about their gender, but assuming that other people will find it relevant can be a little rude (just like it would be rude to expect you to find gender unimportant). Anyway, there is a shortcut to finding out if someone has specified their gender in their user preferences – you can do that under "preferences" at the top of the page. If you go to your sandbox and type the code {{gender|username}}, replacing "username" with the name of the user, and then preview the page (no need to save it) you will see the text "he" or "she" or "they". "They" is the default, but it is not unusual for editors to change it. --bonadea contributions talk 21:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Bonadea, I'm thinking that sticking to the teahouse might be the way forward at the moment. But very grateful for input. --Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

PS. What does (UTC) at the end of each username stand for?

UTC refers to the time stamp in the signatures, which display Coordinated Universal Time rather than any local time. --bonadea contributions talk 06:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) ... Although rather delightfully it just happens at the moment (and sometimes labelled GMT) to be the correct local time for where I live, though once we hit 29 March we're wrong again for a bit ... :) DBaK (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Driving Licence (film)

Bonadea and Girth Summit, want to know what is happening at Driving Licence (film) ? Read this. 137.97.17.245 (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Stop

Stop removing and editing my submissions and contributions to Wikipedia. You have no idea what you are looking at or talking about. I am contributing technical information and actual history to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carsenjk (talk • contribs) 19:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

No, you are adding promotional text about a topic you are personally involved with, including adding completely irrelevant text to an article about a different subject. That goes against Wikipedia's policies. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 19:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Hola hola... Marion Woynar de Guillen Rafael (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding article

You have added the tag on the article which i created , i have fixed it and added the references please check and i am not paid for editing i am only making page myself which i think its notable. such as Burns Road Food Street Baitul Mukarram Masjid (Karachi).

Memon KutianaWala (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

upe

I would say with 99.9% certainty that this user is absolutely engaging in paid or COI editing, so much so that I'd actually bet money on it. Without spilling all the beans, every single tell is there but more importantly, I'll note that this is beyond Wikipedia and someone (possibly an agency) is engaging in what I call PR shopping, which is flooding various news entities with stories about their clients to make them appear legit. It's so incredibly telling that every single one of these article subjects are supposedly famous in an Arabic speaking country, like Saudi Arabia, for example yet none of the sources are Saudi publications and there's nothing in Arabic, which I've verified with a well trusted Ar editor. Praxidicae (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

oh and a cherry on top. Praxidicae (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Please Review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Knowledge_Lens

Check and let us know feedback: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Knowledge_Lens — Preceding unsigned comment added by Storiesbyjerry (talk • contribs) 16:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Storiesbyjerry: Yes, you have submitted it for review correctly, so it is in the queue. Someone will be along to decline the submission in due time. When you say "let us know", who is "us"? --bonadea contributions talk 16:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

Thanks for your useful information. Will do my best to provide the page with relevant information. Thanks, have a great day. Theov11dr (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)