User talk:Bonadea/Archive 21

About Happy Science article
Dear Bonadea, Thank you for your contributions.

You claim that ‘Happy Science is widely criticized as a cult’ at the beginning in the article. However, I think it is a slightly exaggerated expression, because the circulation of these references is less than 0.5% population in each countries as follows. On the viewpoint of circulation, it’s not ‘widely’. So it need not to be described at the beginning, and the expression at the begging is misleading for many readers. I was wondering if you could replace it with another expression or delete it based on the following investigation.

<>

 (Population: 127 Million)

Yomiuri Paper 8.83 Million

Asahi Paper 6.25 Million

Mainichi Paper 3.01 Million

Nikkei Paper 2.71 Million

Sankei Paper 1.55 Million

'''The Japan times 0.04 Million ( It is only 0.03% in Japanese population ) '''

 (Population: 65 Million)

The Sun 1.66 Million

Daily Mail 1.51 Million

Metro 1.47 Million

The Observer 0.17 Million ( It is only 0.26% in UK population )


 * The paper was banned in Egypt in February 2008 after reprinting cartoons allegedly insulting Mohammed.

 (Population: 261 Million)

Kompass  0.60 Million

Jawa Pos  0.45 Million

Suara Pembaruan 0.35 Million

Republika 0.32 Million

Media Indonesia 0.25 Million

'''The Jakarta post 0.04 Million ( It is only 0.015% ) '''

 (Population: Million 24 Million)

HERALD SUN 0.30 Million

DAILY TELEGRAPH 0.22 Million

WEST AUSTRALIAN 0.13 Million

COURIER MAIL 0.13 Million

ADVERTISER 0.11 Million

AGE 0.08 Million ( It is only 0.33% )

Best regards, Thank you. Rithtree (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * To save space on the page, I am collapsing the numbers you give above, but they are easily acessible by clicking "show" in the box.


 * Thank you very much for opening a discussion instead of just deleting the word. A few points here. The word "widely" does not originate with me, I have just restored it several times over the past several months when the article, sadly, has been vandalised by people who seem to wish to remove sourced criticism of the organisation (I know that is an odd thing for anyone to do in an encyclopedia, but it does happen). It is not I who claim it, the claim is based on several different reliable sources. Secondly, the numbers you present above are a clear-cut example of original research, which we can never use, and in addition, circulation figures are not a good measure of reliability - the most prominent example being the Daily Mail which has a large circulation but is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. One reason why circulation figures are unreliable is that they sometimes include online circulation, and sometimes not. This is not an invitation for you to provide sources for the figures, though - it would still be original research. The fact that is missing from your reasoning above is that it is very difficult to find reliable, independent sources that do not claim that HS is a cult (even if that exact term is not used). If the larger papers haven't discussed HS, it's because it is a marginal religious movement, not because the cult claim is inappropriate.


 * You also employ a specific and narrow interpretation of "widely". The word can equally well refer to the case that media in Japan, Uganda, Australia, the UK, and the US have all used the term "cult". In the interest of neutrality, Wikipedia uses the phrasing currently in the article, instead of simply calling the movement "a cult"; the encyclopedia has to be neutral, and so the phrase "widely critizised as" is used instead. --bonadea contributions talk 09:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Bonadea, thank you for your quick response and a polite answer. I have understood Circulation and reliability. Follow your precious advice, I've found some independent widely sources that are indirect evidence 'HS is not a cult'. For example, introduction of HS (Fox TV, US), HS'lecture live (10 or more stations including national broadcasts and a lot press reported about it), HS's book introduction and so on. Because they treat HS favorably, they are indirect evidence about it. From the perspective of neutrality, not the purpose of publicity, I think we should add such sources. May I add some describes in Controversy Section? Or Is it better for us to discuss a little more? Thank you.Rithtree (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Majaz- Ae Gham-e-Dil Kya Karun
Sir please tell me the steps so that i can follow thank you sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majaz- Ae Gham-e-Dil Kya Karun (talk • contribs) 11:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. I suggest that you start by reading - carefully - the advice you were given at Teahouse. ColinFine gave you some very specific step-by-step instructions there. Also make sure that you have read Your first article, as was also suggested to you in that section. You can also simply wait for your draft to be reviewed (well, you will have to do that in any case) and see what the reviewer says. But since the draft is in fact not well-sourced at all, it would be better if you worked on it, and then perhaps it will be approved for mainspace when it is reviewed. To improve it, again, read the information given to you at the Teahouse. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 11:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

unhelpful
why delete the whole section on field spaniels when you dont like one of the references. The description of the dog, its origination and colours are wrong. I am assuming you dont like the fact that the field cockers are referencing this, but it is a new issue, new slang, and causing a real confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriswarry (talk • contribs) 13:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Please use the article's talk page to discuss this. Splitting discussions into several different parts means that most of the participants won't be able to see most of it. I have already written an explanation on the talk page of exactly what is the problem with the edit I reverted (well, some of the issues, anyway.) If you read that, you'll get answers to your question above.  --bonadea contributions talk 13:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Outreach and Invitations:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
 * Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!
 * If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: . Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive
 * A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
 * Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. —  TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) 
 * ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
 * The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

'No fancy template...
It's that time of the year again, Bonadea. No fancy template, but just wishing you all the best for the holidays and the new year, and thanking  you  for  all  you  do. It's probably a lot warmer where I am than where you  are 😎 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Bonadea: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, — MRD2014 Merry Christmas! 02:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


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

Balans
As the GA writer of the article above, I thank you for taking actions in protecting "Balans". I tried to revert the IP's actions, but he never seems to stop. Best and merry christmas; Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:


 * The total number of reviews completed for the month.
 * The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Bonadea!


Happy New Year! Bonadea, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 07:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Request for confirmation of the page.
Thank you for your edits. I request you please have a review on the page Jatin Wahane https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jatin_Wahane. Ken Moss Jr (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed it the article, and its sources. There is one paper published by Wahane, and that is a primary source that can't be used to show anything except that he's had that one paper published. There is a speakersbase.com listing, which is also a primary source and doesn't show anything at all. And finally there is a trivial mention of his name in a newspaper article that's not about him. What is needed is several independent reliable sources that write about him in depth, and the article has no such source. --bonadea contributions talk 23:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Clarence Article Deletion
Greetings Bonadea,

I am having a hard time writing my article to comply within Wikipedia's guidelines. I've accomplished work with very notable people, and my article keeps getting flagged and removed. Can you give me suggestions on how to give information about myself without having the page deleted? Do you all supply writers to ensure information is written correctly?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarence McNair (talk • contribs) 23:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bonadea,

In this talk page, I have included the information to insert for the Clarence McNair page. Can you review for submission and contest the deletion of this page please and thank you!

Clarence "KD" McNair (November 30, 1977) is an American entertainer, brand manager, recording manager, and event coordinator in the Entertainment Industry. Born in Baltimore, Maryland, KD grew up performing in various singing platforms. He reached stardom when discovered by brand manager Brian Dickens and Jerome Lattisaw (Haqq Islam) in the mid 1990s and signed to Interscope Records [] with R&B male group Prophet Jones. The group was later signed to Motown Records [] with the help of [] Russell Simmons, founder of []Def Jam Recordings. KD co-wrote the self-titled album Prophet Jones released in 2001, where the group performed on [] Soul Train, []MTV2, and BET's 106 and Park hosted by AJ and Free. Prophet Jones was also featured in [] Jet Magazine listed as 2002's Top 10 Albums of the Year and film soundtrack of "Bait".

After the break up of Prophet Jones in 2004, KD continued to work in the music and entertainment industry as a recording manager. He worked with video director [] Gil Green and helped produce music with [] Jazze Pha, [], McKelly Jamison, and [] Gordon Chambers. In 2012, KD ventured into event coordinating for celebrities such as [] Ice-T and Coco from "[]Ice Loves Coco," where he launched Coco's "Licious Apparel" for New York Fashion Week in 2012.

Today, KD is the Chief Executive Operator of Planet McNair, International Brand Management and Entertainment Agency, and Planet McNair Frangrances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarence McNair (talk • contribs) 08:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Please stop adding text about yourself to Wikipedia pages. A lot of information was posted to your user talk pages about why autobiographies are a bad idea; you removed that info so presumably you have seen it. Wikipedia is not a medium to promote yourself. --bonadea contributions talk 09:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for Reverting
Oh, okay, I'm sorry, I'm still new to this... Academic Ninja (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No worries :-) Thanks for your message! --bonadea contributions talk 08:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Aralia Fresia
I'm usually dog walking at that time and don't edit from my phone. I see it was dealt with. Doug Weller talk 14:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Testosterone
First off male human is not right term it's men stop being stupid. Sameem123 (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me Revert disruptive edits first off male human is not correct term it's men. Sameem123 (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Why do you say that? "Male humans" is the term used in the source, and it is a more specific term than "men". There is nothing incorrect about it, so what makes you think it is wrong? --bonadea contributions talk 09:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * So you think I'm wrong and you're right male human is still incorrect. Sameem123 (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * My question was why you think "male human" is incorrect. --bonadea contributions talk 18:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Mirraw
Mirraw is not a "run of the mill" company - it is one of the biggest online retailers in the world's fastest growing online retail market (india) and to this day is a bootstrapped company (another "novel" aspect about Mirraw - to have raised funding would have made them "run of the mill"). The sources are not all Press Releases either - the first 3 references are absolutely bonafide from some of India's biggest media companies, and the last one, though not from a "media" source (but still not a press release) - it is a website that is run by Franchise owners association of India and they feature their artices about promising companies. Its not a news-media socurce in the traditional sense but it is no press release either. user:Subho2017


 * You should post your arguments at Articles for deletion/Mirraw which is where the discussion is taking place. --bonadea contributions talk 16:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Prabhloch Singh and Middle Finger Protests
Thank you for putting your views across for Prabhloch Singh article. I agree with you that if convinced enough to be deleted, it should be merged with and redirected to Middle Finger Protests. However, the same user has also nominated middle finger protests article to be deleted as well. Could you kindly post your views on Middle Finger Protests page as well? The user who nominated unfortunately seems to be not being fair with the nomination.ThisMr (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * thanks for your message. I had actually posted there, too, but it took a little while because I wanted to have a second look at the sources first. I don't think the nominator has any bad intentions, I just don't agree with the nomination. It can be hard to evaluate Indian sources, because a lot of what is published in even reputable newspapers is really press releases from organisations, but in this case I don't think that's the case. --bonadea contributions talk 13:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: New Year Backlog Drive results:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
 * We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!
 * We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
 * Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

Hansel DeBartolo
I was about ready to whack you for this until I saw you reverted yourself a moment later. As you saw, though, some content about that "Sexy Vegan" thing had been there since December, but I caught on to it when someone started adding more content last night. From what I gather, it appears to be his son, but I see no legitimate place in his article for it. Home Lander (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * A trout would have been called for - I have no idea how I read those diffs! You're completely right about the herbivorous sex symbol, of course. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 13:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Message from Dantebish
ok, If SEXY VEGAN is not noteable than why did Dr. Phil post Sexy to his instagram and he has never done that with a non famous guest before including that cash me outside girl. answer me that? If you go on Dr. Phil's ig now Sexy is not far down. Check it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantebish (talk • contribs) 09:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * That is actually not the point here. Edit warring to get your preferred information into the article is not allowed.  You will be blocked (not by me, I am not an administrator, but by somebody who has those tools) unless you revert your own latest edit to Dr. Phil (talk show). Please make that self-revert before you do any more editing, and then the discussion can continue, at Talk:Dr. Phil (talk show). Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 10:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

THAT IS THE POINT...you say Sexy is not noteable and Dr PhiL says he is AND IT IS HIS SHOW NOT YOURS! I asked the administrator for protection...there is no point in talking to you when all you do is lie or not see easy to understand truth. basic english=incoherant to you and Dr PhiL HIMSELF posting the subjust to his instagram which he didn't even do for the Cash Me Outside girl or the Bum Fights guy or ANY nothing guest is PROOF of Sexy's noteablility so when proof is shown and then just denied then there is no argument to have...the proof is shown clear as day and if you cannot see it that doesn't mean it should go down. This wikipedia system is deeply flawed. YOU ARE THE ONE DOING THE TROLLING...you keep erasing my hard work on a noteable person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantebish (talk • contribs) 10:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, I acknowledge having seen your message above, and note that you have chosen to violate the edit warring policy. While you are blocked, please take a moment to read up on what notability means on Wikipedia. Again, that policies are here and (for musicians) here. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 10:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * [Incredulously.] Dantebish?  darwin bish  BITE   ☠  03:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC).

About my changes about page Sambhaji
Hello,

I have added those changes with a reference to hitorical book Sambhaji by Vishwas Patil.

Sambhaji has been made a controversial figure by wrong people majorly due to his conflicts with Shivaji's ministers viz. Annaji Datto. On Marathi wikipedia page about Sambhaji, these changes are taken care of but not in English page.

I would like to add more info on Sambhaji.

Also the same wrong information is there on page Shivaji Maharaj. Please restore my contribution.

Awaiting your reply. Vikram Vikram-dattu (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * As I mentined on your user talk page, you need to start a discussion on the article's talk page, Talk:Sambhaji, and get consensus in favour of your proposed changes. This has to happen before you restore the changes - don't remove existing content unless you have a clear consensus in favour of that. Note that you need reliable sources to back up your claims; the novel by Patil does not meet those criteria. Each Wikipedia project in different languages is a separate encyclopedia with a separate community and separate guidelines. That Marathi Wikipedia has different information is thus not in itself a reason to change the info here. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 18:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018
Hello, I'm Waggie. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to User talk:Favonian— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Waggie (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message - I see that you realised that the message I removed from Favonian's talk page was actually just some garden variety trolling by some blocked editor or another. Thanks for removing it again. The trolls don't deserve the recognition :-) Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 19:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Thanks! Waggie (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

William Marrion Branham
You reverted an edit I'd done. There is mention about "Early in his ministry, Branham at times referred to the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Trinity[60]" - there are almost all of his sermons in the internet and there is not a refer as to third person of the Trinity. Proove that or delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahue (talk • contribs) 14:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The information is in the scholarly source. Reading or listening to the sermons and drawing our own conclusions would be original research, which is explicitly not allowed on Wikipedia. We go by what reliable sources say. --bonadea contributions talk 15:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

troll
Hi. Long time. Are you sure it is a troll? I was back there to post link to minguide and realised you had blanked the page. — usernamekiran (talk)  21:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there :-) Yes, it is nsmutte - he is unmistakeble. (He was already blocked by the time you posted your excellent advice, in fact.)   --bonadea contributions talk 22:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing refrences
Hi friend ... u marked my article for deleting .. can I know the reason ? I talked to some one before and they said me to edit references .. and I am doing it .... plz give me more time for this edit .. Zara st (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The reason is provided here. There is unfortunately no sign in the article that the person (who is yourself, I believe?) meets Wikipedia's definition of notability. Very few people meet those requirements, so that's not a slight on you or your work, it just means that you are not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. But in any case, the deletion discussion happens on the page I linked above, and it will probably go on for a week, which is the normal length of time for deletion discussions. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 14:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * where I could answer to ur questions or say my Defenses and prove his notability ? Zara st (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * On the page I linked to in the post you replied to. You have a link on your user talk page as well in the message informing you of the deletion. Here it is again. --bonadea contributions talk 06:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * really thanks ..should I write on TALK PAGE or THE PAGE u linked?Zara st (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * On the page I linked, not the talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 06:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Again.. what do u mean by "please declare your conflict of interest" in here ?(my second language is English and i can't understand ur meaning) and can i vote for that article ? when do u decide about staying/deleting it ? thx Zara st (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi
Sad to hear about the death of Kjerstin Dellert and Kenneth Gärdestad. Two great musicians.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * - sorry it took me so long to reply to this. Yes, a sad loss indeed, both of them. I was especially shocked about Kenneth Gärdestad - I didn't know he was ill. Kjerstin Dellert at least had a good long innings. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 20:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI
The vandalism you've just been reverting: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/KINGPORUS. Thanks, The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Bookkeeping page changes you're reverting
If you could help me understand what is wrong with the citations, I'd be grateful. Not sure why you think the Accountex link is advertisement or even a blog. Accountex is one of the biggest voices in the industry. What makes it a copyright violation? Seems the same to me as citing New York Times. I'm trying to help here and get this corrected before it's submitted again. Thank you. Evanvalken (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your post is a response to who has already answered your questions on his talk page. Wikipedia can't be used as a medium of promoting a concept the way your group of friends have been doing, apart from the even more serious copyright issue. --bonadea contributions talk 23:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * One thing I did not expect when I started the day was having to handle a pack of Reserved Reconcilers. LOL. Ah well, at least they're polite. --Neil N  talk to me 23:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages! ACTRIAL:
 * ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing
 * Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines
 * The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
 * Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking  place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
 * While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

Hey Bonadea Thank you for reviewing the page Neevan Nigam and redirecting it to Sonu Nigam HeyLetgoletgo (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

My Satte Pe Satta edit
Hello Bonadea, I am Indiancinemafan. I respect your point of view that I should not add personal view but the songs of Satte Pe Satta are considered to be famous in general in India. There are plenty of other film articles that claim a movie’s soundtrack was a major success and my comment was no different. Indiancinemafan (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for your message. It's not my point of view that's relevant here, but the Wikipedia policy about neutrality. This edit added POV/promotional phrasing saying that the film "has very melodious songs" and talks about "eerie backgroun[d] music" and a "negative character" (I understand that it is common in Indian cinema to talk about villains as "negative characters" but to people outside that context it sounds like an insult against the actor). That's all opinion, which should never be part of a Wikipedia article. If the music has gained significant recognition, a neutrally-worded sentence about this (not mentioning all the songs) could be added with a reliable source. This is not a reliable source, I'm afraid, and in any case it doesn't support the claim that the music is particularly noteworthy. Yes, there are many articles about movies, not only Indian movies, that contain personal opinions by fans. Those should all be cleaned up, but it is a huge task. :-) Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 12:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

PRK Audio
Bonadea I wanted to inform you that I have removed the redirect to Puneeth Rajkumar of the page PRK Audio. I think it satisfies the Notability criteria. So I have reverted your edit. If you have change in opinion please share. -- Thank you TheUnbeatable (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Taken to AfD. --bonadea contributions talk 06:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

My Amitabh Bachchan edit
Dear Bonadea, My sources supported the humanitarian work that I said Amitabh Bachchan did. On Shahrukh Khan's Wikipedia his humanitarian causes are listed in his third lead paragraph. If you truly want to be fair, remove that part of his paragraph too. If not then allow me to put my info for Amitabh Bachchan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiancinemafan (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible sock
Hello Bonadea, can you please take a look at this user who was registered a couple of days after (a sockpuppet of عثمان خلیل) and editing in the same area. You seem to have enough knowledge about their behaviour so bringing it to your attention and also pining who filled the SPI. Thank you GSS (talk |c|em ) 08:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for late reply. Thanks - my recollection was a bit faint but I remember this editor, now. I'll have a look. --bonadea contributions talk 14:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Muhsin ibn Ali
The provided content that i removed and you restored is totally false and against the religous sentiments of the vast muslim population. I ask you humbly to please the content because its a fabricated story. Umea2222 (talk) 07:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reports what reliable sources have to say about a subject, and the content you removed had multiple sources. --bonadea contributions talk 07:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

FYI (2)
That one's Wikinger. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops. Thanks. (Not that it matters much which troll it is, but I did wonder a little about the edit summaries which were not typical for the one I thought it was, so I appreciate the heads-up.) --bonadea contributions talk 09:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mazhavaraayas
Hi Bonadea,

The information about the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mazhavaraayas was wrongly depicted in that page need to be deleted or else modified since it links with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gandaraditya chola king.

Or Else unlink that data from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gandaraditya&action=edit&section=4 where it says she belong to malavarayars which is correct but the linking is wring here

Queen and heir Gandaraditya's queen was Madevadigalar alias Sembiyan Madeviyar who bore him a son called Madhurantaka Uttama Chola. This must have been very late in his life.[5][6] At the time of Gandaraditya’s death (c. 956 CE), Uttama Chola must have been a young boy, as he was set aside in the order of succession and Arinjaya took over the Chola crown.[7] Sembiyan Madeviyar survived her husband for a long time. She seems to have been a pious lady as she figures in several inscriptions, making donations to various temples. She died c. 1001 CE during Rajaraja’s reign.[8] She was the daughter of Malavarayar chieftain and is described thus in inscriptions.[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bornspy (talk • contribs) 05:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I see you took care of the unlinking already. --bonadea contributions talk 05:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

contact for edition.
hi dear Bonadea thank you for your contact.but i do not thing the edition which i have done in the article and i have cited a link is inappropriate.freelance writing is not a thing which is not related to the topic.and second thing i am not advertising any kind of affiliate links.i have read the article and thought that this aspect should also be discussed in this topic that is why i have inserted some points and that link.thousands of writer are earning from writing these days then why should not be mention in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habibkaka07 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * all information in Wikipedia articles has to be supported by reliable sources. The reference you provided is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, and the information you gave is not supported anywhere. Wikipedia can't make vague and general statements like "lots of people earn money from this" unless there is actual well-researched data showing it. --bonadea contributions talk 10:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)