User talk:Bonadea/Archive 26

incorrect.
Intrigued. --  Deep fried  okra    06:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I assume you refer to this but am not sure why that would be intriguing. I had repeated my arguments a couple of times in that discussion already, and you must forgive me for withdrawing from it. If consensus is to choose a press release claiming something that is verifiably incorrect as well as virtually impossible, then consensus wins. --bonadea contributions talk 06:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * (To be honest it is helpful in a way – I always collect examples of why Wikipedia can not be trusted, to tell my students, and this is a really good example.) --bonadea contributions talk 06:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

wow
What a clean and pristine talk page. Like a blank sheet of paper crying out to be filled with words. So unlike EEng's.--  Deep fried  okra    06:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I just archived everything since August. EEng is an ideal to aspire to, but I don't think I am capable of achieving that, so I won't even try. --bonadea contributions talk 06:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 37
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 37, November – December 2019 
 * #1Lib1Ref
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Why did you delete my question in the Teahouse?
Why did you delete my question in the Teahouse?LorriBrown (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It was an edit conflict. --bonadea contributions talk 21:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you! LorriBrown (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

IP blocked, revisions rev/del'd
Doug Weller talk 07:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020
Hello ,

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
 * Source Guide Discussion

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
 * Redirects


 * Discussions and Resources
 * There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
 * A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
 * A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
 * A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
 * Refresher

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

biological essentialism
Why did you revert my correction of the statement that all scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete?Kuiet (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Because it was unsourced and therefor, your opinion. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I've linked Essentialism in edit summary and said it disagrees. Why is
 * considered unsourced and my opinion?Kuiet (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you are watching.Edit to ping new interlocutor.Kuiet (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not know anything about biological essentialism. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 23:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not think you do, no need to apologise for it. But that's irrelevant to whether you consider something unsourced. So please, address why you consider it unsourced and my opinion.Kuiet (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * this will be my final comment on this matter. Please show me where the source/reference that supports the changes you made are. I don't see any, do you ?  Have a nice day. Cheers,  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 23:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I see now! Thank you sincerely for clearing that up.Kuiet (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Happy editing, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 00:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Børk!


Bishonen &#124; tålk 22:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC).


 * Thank you! All we like sheep! --bonadea contributions talk 06:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion over Allen Iverson
Hello. I would like to discuss added the backpack that was robbed from Allen Iverson. It was returned to him, however, it made national news in America. I would say the event is enough to warrant a mention on his article. I do agree it was over cited. Would you agree to having the mention of it with 1 or 2 cited articles?

Thank you for responding. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi two different people have independently of each other judged the lost-and-found backpack story to be irrelevant for Wikipedia's purposes. There are millions of news stories in different countries every day; the thing to ask here is whether this particular thing is something that will be interesting and relevant to Wikipedia readers in ten years or fifty years or a hundred years (assuming Wikipedia still exists and that there are still people around to read it). I strongly believe that the story does not have that kind of lasting impact and encyclopedic value. --bonadea contributions talk 07:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Pajamas edit
i didn't realize that you wanted to keep the picture, i hadn't even realized i deleted it, thank you --TyNoOutlet (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * No, I figured you deleted it by mistake :-) It is really not about me personally wanting to keep it, of course. Anyway, no harm done either way. --bonadea contributions talk 19:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Please LOCK the Kayastha page
Hi Administrator,

Please lock the following page

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayastha

It's the main page of Kayastha and the information present there is very important.

People have already started to vandalize this page. The rights to make edits to this page should only be given to reputed and recognised editors here who have been contributing to that page since years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmin

Similar to the page mentioned above WHICH IS LOCKED,the page  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayastha

was also LOCKED till a few days ago but from a 2-3 days ago, it's been unlocked.

HOW?

I hope that it's an error made by you guys. So,I hope that you lock that page to prevent vandalism!!

Awaiting your reply at the earliest! Dinopce (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not an administrator so I can neither lock nor unlock pages. Post a request this page (there are instructions there for how to do it) and aome uninvolved administrator will evaluate the request. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 19:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Bonadea Dinopce (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

uw-x1 templates and user talk page protection
So long as your talk page is protected, it's probably best to just start with uw-x2 templates when warning new users, since the you can leave me a message on my talk page is confusing in the context of your user talk page being protected. BTW, if you wish, I can lift that protection early (right now), or you may enjoy a couple of more weeks of being Nsmuth-free here. Up to you. El_C 15:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Francesco Sidoti
Hello Bonadea (again)! In any academic essay references notes are usually placed at the end. An editor has declined my publication on account of not having footnotes. In fact, my footnotes are all there! I recommend that he/she reads properly. Very tiresome people ... Yours Peiris Fox (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Bonadea. I'm still expecting my latest text (Draft:Francesco Sidoti) to be published. It's not too long but is filled with references (14 in fact), although for some moronish reason the person who came to make a revision refused to publish it. An authoritarian and stupid condition, since if the editor has no minimum qualifications he/she alone cannot make proper decisions (moreover in this case, when the editor is seemingly nearsighted). I hope you can solve yet another question involving discrimination against my production. Yours Peiris Fox (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
Doug Weller talk  —Preceding undated comment added 16:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Require your assistance
Hello Bonadea. Thank you for moving my article to draft space from mainspace after an inexperienced editor just jumped the AfC process and played with my article. I took note of your suggestion to fix the citation sources in my draft Draft: Fynd. However, I don't know why a speedy deletion tag was put in my draft. I believe the AfC process is for others to pitch-in and contribute towards improvement. Being a new editor, it's definitely discouraging that nobody's offering me a scope for improvement. I just wanted a proper AfC process, that's why I didn't jump any queue. I have followed all Wiki guidelines but it is now tagged with G11. Would really appreciate if I am given a chance.

Trinityfire (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Neolamarckia cadamba :suresh sharma
I will clear few things 1. This is the journalist fault that he writes Mitragyna parvifolia in bracket but before he wrote kadamb as neolamarckia cadamba callef in hindi as kadamb. 2.i have other article also in which at last you paragraph it is clearly mention that suresh sharma filed a writ to protect kadamb tree visit the website .https://www.thehindu.com, then sign up and sign in then search for herbal cure for diabetes type II granted patent. 3. I have court order sheet also which states clearly that there should not be felling of kadam tree in the state of rajasthan. 4. I have a hindi language and a english language news article which cleary says about a successful campaign of banning of reckless cutting of kadam tree in rajasthan but these two article not available online .so please guide me how to upload these two article and court order sheet. Alekh99 (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * As Quisqualis said on your user talk page, you need to use the article talk page to discuss this. And no, there is no need to sign up to anything in order to read articles in The Hindu – here is the article you mention. It would not be useful as a reference though, as it does not say anything about the tree being protected. (Again, the individual who filed the petition is irrelevant to the article about the tree.) Please use the article talk page to discuss this – you can provide the details about the news articles you mention above there. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 18:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay i will do as you say Alekh99 (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I have submitted a page on Suresh Sharma and additionally added those two citation reference one from The Pioneer and other Dainik Bhaskar .also one thing i want to ask why peter has deleted suresh sharma name from my edit anyways i have not changed anything in peter edit. Alekh99 (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Please use the article talk page. When you post to people's user talk pages, it means that it is very unlikely that other people will see it, and I don't want to carry on the same conversation in several places. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 12:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you help in deletion of the entire discussion on neolamarckia cadamba Talk page discussion “Granted stay “topic Alekh99 (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, talk page discussions are not deleted. --bonadea contributions talk 06:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

you have mention in your last chat on talk page of neolamarckia cadamba word "incorrect" that is something i want to delete that's it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alekh99 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * OK. But I stand by that description. The article claimed (briefly) that the law had been changed in 2004 but that was based on a misunderstanding. It had not been changed, which means that the info was incorrect. --bonadea contributions talk 06:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

if you read the the last paragraph of the hindi news article it clearly mentioned that kadam tree was declared one of the protected tree back in 1958. and there is no incorrect info as on writ of suresh sharma court ordered to stop the cutting of kadam tree.as in writ suresh sharma also mentioned kadam tree as one of the protected tree.there is no writing in the article that law has changed .tell me where it written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alekh99 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia article made that claim. I removed it when I realised it was incorrect. I am not talking about the newspaper articles used as sources. --bonadea contributions talk 06:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, looking at the talk page post in question, I think I was pretty clear on what it was that was incorrect. So no, I'm not going to delete or refactor it. --bonadea contributions talk 06:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The below is the chat which i posted before line 96 which you mentioned in your last chat here.the below chat from me clears that already told about that kadam is declared as protected ,then how can you say incorrect. I just want to add about his efforts which he made to protect kadam tree in Rajasthan. In year 2004 kadam tree come on the verge of extinction as thousands of kadam trees were cut down in rajasthan, the area in which kadam tree was used to found in abundance were not left with a single kadam tree. There started the campaign of suresh sharma against the government of Rajasthan to protect kadam tree. About the extract i want clear that they can be made in labs and even i am not describing anything about diabetes treatment in any of my edit, page etc. I only want that what suresh sharma did for protecting kadam tree should come this neolamarckia cadamba page. Since kadam tree is a lord krishna tree so it has cultural significance also and one more thing that kadam tree was declared as one of the protected tree in india so it has to be saved. Tree always has cultural and medicinal value in Indian religion so basically the cutting of kadam tree was thousands in number as it is also mention in news article which i mention above in my last post .so i want to edit that Suresh Sharma came forward to save kadam tree in Rajasthan and filed a writ against the government of Rajasthan, As due to government negligence attitude led cutting of thousands of kadam tree and as a result suresh sharma writ The Rajasthan High Court banned the cutting of kadam tree in the state of Rajasthan. Alekh99 (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alekh99 (talk • contribs)

even you can say that the law was again came to enforcement due to suresh sharma writ, but the information was not incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alekh99 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I did not say that you were incorrect. I did not say that the newspaper sources were incorrect. I did not say that Suresh Sharma was incorrect. I said that the text "As a result, the court banned the cutting of kadam trees in Rajasthan", which was briefly present in the Wikipedia article, was incorrect. As I pointed out in the talk page post (or what you refer to as a "chat"), Wikipedia implied that the law was changed in 2004. It was not, so Wikipedia was incorrect. That a court enforced an existing law is a very different thing – important in the local context, but not relevant to Wikipedia. The fact that Sharma filed a writ was never claimed to be incorrect, but that can't be included for different reasons, also clearly explained on the article talk page. Please stop debating this point over and over; I am not going to continue this discussion. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 07:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

K A-S
I think I've tidied up all of their f-bombs. Please let me know if I've missed any. Sorry you had to be the butt of so many of their attacks. Cabayi (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Why?
Hey !!! You have edited my talk page. Is it allowed to edit or remove something from someone's talk page???? 😕 Tanisha priyadarshini (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You must ask me about this before deleting something.😑😕 Tanisha priyadarshini (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is simply not how talk pages work, see Talk page guidelines. Praxidicae (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And what Bonadea removed has no business being on a talkpage - Wikipedia isn't a free webhost for "beauty hacks."   Acroterion   (talk)   15:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologise – I thought I had posted an explanation as well, for why I removed that section, but I see I had left it half-written when I was called away from the computer. In any case, Praxidicae and Acroterion have explained it very well. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 16:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Ohh nice.......Thank you very much all of you 👏👏👏..... Tanisha priyadarshini (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The Toven Draft
Hi Bonadea,

Please respond over at Theroadislong talk page where in your own words..you butted in at, regarding this draft to help eliminate page hopping. Continuing the discussion there where the context lies would be appreciated.

Do you recommend page jumping

ThanksSpiritletters (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

First Battle of Anandpur
Ghumand chand, jagtullah were killed this article needs correction

What a nice guy
Doug Weller talk 16:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, that's lovely. Saves me from wondering if I overreacted, anyway... --bonadea contributions talk 20:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Egyptian pyramids - I've added the same to two other talk pages. Doug Weller  talk 10:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Help
Hi B, re: this person, if you happen to see them editing without declaring a paid connection, please tell me. I'll try to keep an eye on them, but I sometimes get distracted. There's some off-site information I found that makes it pretty clear that they are working. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll try to keep an eye out for that. Might  also be part of the same thing? They have been making very similar edits to Prajakta Koli. --bonadea contributions talk 10:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Editing the Article For Prajakta Koli
Hi Bonadea,

Hope this message finds you well, I wanted to inform you I have no financial gains from the edits I am making. The edits that I have made especially for Prajakta Koli, I have no financial gains from it. She is someone whose activity I follow closely and hence edit her article frequently. I would be happy to give you a declaration regarding the same. Let me know how can we proceed with the same.

Additionally I wanted clarity on how I can re-add the Awards and Honors section as it suggested that there was no proper citation provided wherein I had used the citations from direct sources. Would be glad if you could share your feedback on the same

Grammatical formatting and abbreviation of U.S. state names
I just wanted to say thanks, Bonadea, for the warm welcome to Wikipedia and for all the links and sources. This is definitely a learning process, but it's interesting.

Thanks again!

Dactyl123 (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * My pleasure! Yes, it is a learning process, but we've all gone through it, and it is not hard to remember how extremely complex it all was at first.  Feel free to drop by and ask, if you have other questions. If nothing else I may be able to point you in the direction of people who know more than I. Happy editing!  --bonadea contributions talk 15:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Grammatical formatting and abbreviation of U.S. state names
I'll definitely keep you offer of help in mind.

Thanks!

Dactyl123 (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Issue 38, January – April 2020
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 38, January – April 2020 
 * New partnership
 * Global roundup

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Corrections in article on Sambhaji
Ok fine, I agree. But guide me on how can I achieve this consensus. How can I present my sources and arguments, how should I structure it? I have read a lot of books about Sambhaji in the past 12 years. I have read books which portray Sambhaji as cruel, addicted, womanizer. I have also read books which describe Sambhaji as Great, military and administrative genius, a caring king. My attempt is to ensure that people across the world are not misled about Sambhaji because of these old biased references. New references are more accurate and many are still being discovered. Portuguese and British sources have also depicted his qualities as a general and administrator. Charvak157 (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Reply Charvak157 (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * As I said, you need to use the article talk page, Talk:Sambhaji, and discuss your sources there. For instance "book [x] by author [y] says [quote from text]".


 * A general observation: There is no contradiction between being a cruel person and a great general – in fact, I believe the more ruthless military strategists have usually been more successful. As for being fond of "sensual pleasures" when he was a teenager, and his father not liking that, what could be more human? Why is it a problem that such sourced information is presented in a neutral tone of voice? --bonadea contributions talk 12:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much !
I was thinking of dropping a message about User :Dufferdick to an experience editor or to an administrator of his abusingness on my talk page, but before that you have done this from your side , so I'm really very very thankful to you. Tanisha priyadarshini (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No problem, . I'm glad I happened to notice it pretty quickly. Don't hesitate to drop me a line if anything similar happens (though I am not always online, of course). Take care, --bonadea contributions talk 16:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yahhh sure !!! Hope you are well :D Tanisha priyadarshini (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello
Hello Bonadea,

How are you doing?

Just wanted to let you know about this book.

https://www.amazon.in/Formation-Colonial-State-India-1760-1860/dp/0415704472

Review from the above link. "This book makes it obvious that the author needs to do more research. The book shows that the writer (Bellenoit from US Naval Academy) does not have a good understanding of the hindu caste system. For example, there were several groups - some of these groups were warriors(Maharashtra) but Dr.Bellenoit, sitting half-way across the world, seems to be completely ignorant. Secondly, some of these groups were formally classified as Kshatriyas by the religious hindu leaders as early as the 16th century but Bellenoit seems to have not studied that. Other than in north India, these groups held very high positions but again Bellenoit does not know that. He also references books by some British Ethnographers like Steele (who were completely ignorant of Hinduism and have been considered unreliable) instead of British Historians like Grand Duff or Indian historians. Bellenoit also lacks sensitivity and empathy when writing about people. It shows that Bellenoit probably never read much about Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Jagdish Chandra Bose, Shanti Swaroop Bhatnagar, Satyendra Nath Bose etc.."

Another book: Read this book's description(about Bengali Kayasthas being Brahmins first and then Kshatriyas(due to their deeds)) written by a foreigner. This foreigner knows the truth!

https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Sena_Dynasty.html?id=soKnMQEACAAJ&redir_esc=y Dinopce (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It's saying about Gaur Kayasthas(sub-caste of CKs or Chitraguptvanshi Kayasthas). Please go to my talk page to see my last section(Kayastha ruling 1926 Patna High Court) Dinopce (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Even though you told me to not use somebody's comment on my comment,I was left with no other option but to do that for visibility of ideas. Dinopce (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Dinopce, thank you for your message. I am well, and I hope you are, too. I'm afraid I don't understand quite what your point is, and your very long post on your own talk page appears to be a conversation you have copied from elsewhere, so I don't know the context (nor who the participants are). You claim to have had no other option than to copy the posts – I disagree, because nobody can read that conversation and understand what it is about unless are already familiar with it, and you are also copying other people's words without identifying them. You could simply have started a new section on your talk page, written one or two brief sentences explaining what the topic was, and added a link to the existing conversation with a request that the discussion be continued on your user talk page, and then linked to your talk page discussion from the old one. I have almost no clue what the issue is, just that it has to do with the history of castes in India.


 * Anyway, I followed the link you posted. That leads to an amazon.com page for a book, with a negative review of said book. Naturally, amazon.com (or .in or .se or .co.uk or .de or...) reviews can never be a basis for whether Wikipedia considers a publication to be a reliable source. I think that's what you are trying to argue, that the single review by an anonymous user at Amazon somehow proves for Wikipedia's purposes that the book is not reliable. That is absolutely not the case. If there had been one glowing review saying it was the most authoritative book ever, that would also not have proved anything. As for your comment about a foreigner knowing the truth, that makes it look as if you believe you know what the truth is, and are looking for sources to confirm it so you can add it to articles. That's the wrong way around, at least for this kind of topic. We look at sources that are reliable, and determine from those what can be added to Wikipedia. In most cases, that will tally with what we know or what we think is reasonable, but if you think the reliable sources say things that are unpalatable to you, there is a simple fix: don't edit those articles, and you won't be confronted with it. --bonadea contributions talk 12:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I've addressed Differential calculus there at the beginning.
 * Anyways,understood your point about the book by H.Bellenoit. My point was that this book as well as other books written by historians will be based on Raj Era Ethnographers. The historians are historians! They will not write based on Wikipedia's rules that go against the Raj Era sources.
 * The entire confusion here is happening because people have not yet acknowledged the pdf of Final Ruling in 1926 that I mentioned over in my talkpage.
 * All the points to refute the claims by different authors are there.
 * I don't want to take the simple fix as suggested by you.
 * Raj Era or not,high court cases are cases. They're not books by authors.
 * The pdf is of the high court case of 1926. Nobody is going to win the cases again if that's what people want here!
 * Are court cases(Raj Era or previous) considered or not? Dinopce (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Also,H.Bellenoit has used claims by a lot of Raj Era Ethnographers in this book. What to do about that? The Amazon.in review mentions the Raj Era Ethnographers. That was my point! Dinopce (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * this book as well as other books written by historians will be based on Raj Era Ethnographers. It is not the case that contemporary historians will simply repeat what historians of earlier ages have said. That's not how research on history works. It engages in conversation with earlier sources, quotes them, analyses them, and discusses them. If you have clear and well-supported reasons to believe that a particular source is not appropriate, bring your reasons (with a brief and succinct explanation that only refers to Wikipedia policy, and not to any beliefs of what is "true" or not) to the article's talk page, and/or to the reliable sources noticeboard. Secondary sources, such as peer-reviewed publications by highly regarded academics should be used rather than primary sources, such as court rulings (and original research based on a primary source is highly inappropriate). Note that there are several actual reviews of Bellenoït's book in peer-reviewed journals, which you would have to consult before bringing the reliability of the book to the test. As for the second link you posted in your first post above, labelled "Another book" – that is a joke, right? That publication is a POD of an old version of the Wikipedia article Sena dynasty – this version contains the text in the blurb, so maybe that's the one – and the authors have "published" (that is, compiled and offered for sale at a POD basis) various Wikipedia articles. It could be used as a prototypical example of what Wikipedia could never use as a source. --bonadea contributions talk 17:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding the 2nd book. I never said that I'm going to use it as a source here. I already knew that it cannot be added here due to the reason you mentioned! I just said that the author knows the Brahmin and Kshatriya part of Gaur Kayasthas(sub-caste of CKs). My point here was that the author knows that the CKs are Brahmins first and then Kshatriya. This author didn't mix up the vaishya and shudra part with CKs like the other authors who are confused about our origin. This author knows how to weed out the information from Wikipedia that contained the CKs being vaishya etc.
 * Another thing. It's good that you shared this Wikipedia article named Sena Dynasty.
 * There's a part over there 'Ambastha as mixed caste' taken from some book as it was published after the Raj Era and has conformed to the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia.
 * Now read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kayastha#Ambastha_in_Smriti_vs_Ambastha_sub-caste


 * Can you understand now as to why I'm talking about this court ruling of 1926??!


 * People(Historians) are mixing up the Ambastha in Manu(Brahmin father vaishya mother) with Ambastha sub-caste of Kayasthas by mistake or intentionally.
 * Such articles are being added in wikipedia by the people knowingly(for vested interest to defame our community) or unknowingly citing the sources as reliable as it's not Raj Era and conforms to the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. Either way, this shouldn't be added.
 * Is my point clear?
 * It's not a matter of palatable or unpalatable. ::::It's a matter of wrong information being circulated here. Dinopce (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The "second book" is not a book and the "authors" are not its authors and know nothing about the content of any of the many "books" they appear as authors for, which are simply printouts of Wikipedia articles. Thus, the publication is not a reliable source. That does not only mean that it can't be added to the article, but also its claims cannot be used as an argument or to prove what is "true". I'm not at all sure why you are making these arguments here on my user talk page. If any one specific source appears to be unreliable to you, you know where you should bring that discussion up. The "defame our community" claim makes no sense at all. How could defamation be any part of this? --bonadea contributions talk 07:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It was not duplicate. I made the requisite changes to it so that it becomes easier for you to understand!!! Dinopce (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no need for that, but thank you all the same :-) bonadea contributions talk 10:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * People(Historians) are mixing up the Ambastha in Manu(Brahmin father vaishya mother) with Ambastha sub-caste of Kayasthas by mistake or intentionally. If you have reliable scholarly sources supporting that assertion, present them on the article talk page. The talk page section you refer me to above is simply you claiming that this is the case, with a link to a data base which contains the text from that court case from 1926 – and as we know, that is a primary source with no actual scholarly authority. --bonadea contributions talk 10:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Is there any wikipedia rule,WP:?, from where I can understand this primary and secondary source part? I've understood what you want to convey here but the problem here is that I'm not sure where the POINTS USED IN THAT COURT CASE 1926 PDF were taken from?
 * What you're saying is that if I'll be able to find those sources from where POINTS USED IN THAT COURT CASE 1926 pdf were taken from,then I'll be able to refute the negative claims made by others here saying that Kayasthas are Vaishya and Shudra? Right?


 * You(Wikipedia) need those claims written in some book(actual scholarly work),right?


 * If what I've understood above is right,then I'd like to let you know that,my idea is to make a LIST OF SUCH STATEMENTS which can refute the negative claims made by others!Whether those claims are negative or not, you as well as other admins don't know or care(as you and others don't have any knowledge about this topic) AS LONG AS IT CONFORMS TO THE RULES OF WIKIPEDIA. This is where my idea will act as a deterrent to such claims.
 * Historians are historians. They'll keep on writing while basing their research on Raj era sources or later but if I make a list of counter statements(from proper sources;scholarly ones),then it can be used here for future references as well. Understood!!!


 * Last but not the least,let me tell you one thing(even though you'll not be interested in it)that Chitraguptavanshi Kayasthas are Brahmin(Brahmin varna) but are upa-kshatriya(secondary Kshatriya) because of their deeds. The anti-Kayastha groups( mostly Bengali Brahmins)don't want to acknowledge the fact that CKs come in Brahmin varna and hence have written books on us to make us Shudra and Vaishya etc to further defame our community. This is what the politics is about here.
 * Thanks in advance(in case you know of the primary and secondary source WP:?rule) and goodbye.Dinopce (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * See WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. As for Historians are historians. They'll keep on writing while basing their research on Raj era sources or later but if I make a list of counter statements(from proper sources;scholarly ones),then it can be used here for future references as well. Understood!!! no, as above. That is not how historians work at all, and what you are describing is original research. As I already pointed out, it looks as if you are trying to find sources to prove what you know or believe to be true, instead of doing what we are supposed to, which is look at reliable sources and summarise what they say. Nobody has made any "negative claims" that I have seen, so that makes as little sense as when you talked about "defaming" above. --bonadea contributions talk 12:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for the links!


 * "That is not how historians work at all, and what you are describing is original research"-This is where my thinking contradicts yours!


 * It's as if you know that the books written by some of these authors don't have any negative intent about Kayasthas. We're not mind readers!!
 * Some Bengali authors have written that CKs are shudra and Vaishya etc while citing their reasons(of course);can be Original Research(done by him) or not(maybe took that part from some other author's book and used in his book).Historians are also human beings!


 * The claims to counter those claims(written by some Bengali authors(written out of spite in a way that it looks reliable) or foreigners who don't know the intricacies of each and every detail of Kayasthas like Bellenoit's book(according to me as I know what he's missed and where he's wrong;Wikipedians don't)) are written in books published by Kayasth authors.


 * I hope that my question is clear!I had to use a lot of small brackets so that you understand. I hope that it's not confusing. Dinopce (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but everything you say has already been addressed above. I explained how historical scholarship works, by engaging with previous research or older texts; that is not a matter of my opinion, it is simply how they do it. Since there is no claim that is "negative" (or "positive") in Bellenoït's book or any of the other cited scholarship, the question about "negative intent" is moot. If a reliable scolarly source discusses the possibility that population group A has a historical connection to population group B and not to population group C, that is a neutral claim and neither positive nor negative. Please, if you have specific, policy based arguments to make against using Bellenoït's book, go to the relevant discussion page and bring up those arguments. Also, just as a precaution: please do not copy and paste this discussion anywhere else. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 15:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't have any policy based arguments against BELLENOIT'S book. I think you're not understanding my major point.


 * Will explain it to you tomorrow! Dinopce (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Dinopce, I don't think there is any need for that. I believe I understand your point, but I don't think you have quite taken the time to read the responses from me and other people. I will not have any time at all to engage with this discussion tomorrow or over the coming week, and you have not actually asked any questions (other than the question if you could make a "list of statements", which has been responded to – it would be original research, and if your motivation is to refute statements in reliable sources that you personally perceive as "negative", that is the wrong approach – as I've said a couple of times). Neither have you asked me to take any action, so it is better to close the discussion here. --bonadea contributions talk 17:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * As you wish!!


 * Will read our discussion again to understand everything in case I missed any point.


 * I was not going to make a list of statements ON MY OWN TO REFUTE THE CLAIMS(as it'll be against WP:OR). I was going to find these statements from books(reliable scholarly work)written by Historians.
 * Anyways,Thanks for your time!


 * Bye Dinopce (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I have taken things up with Conflict Resolution
I have referred this issue to the No Original Research Noticeboard (see "I try to compare and contrast DVD/liner note narratives" for my side of the story); please redirect your complaint thereto.RobertGustafson (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Citations required on the Arun Bhatt page
Hi Bonadea, thank you for editing this page but there are times when a person's achievements were way before the internet arrived in our country. There are only physical trophies that exist and the record of the awards must be with the Government of the State of Gujarat. I am here because I want to let people know about this person's achievements and there are no means to produce citations for this as the Gujarati film industry was not as publicised as the then Bollywood. Hope you can give me guidance on this. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabock (talk • contribs) 11:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi and thank you for your message. Citations do not have to be online, but they do have to be published by a reliable third-party source – and if no record or source exists at all, English Wikipedia shouldn't include the information. (Note that all the award claims are still in the article, but they have been tagged as needing citations – and if no citations will be forthcoming, the information should eventually be removed.)  Wikipedia can only report on what other sources have already published, and can't be used as a way to spread information that hasn't been published anywhere. --bonadea contributions talk 12:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

thank you for notifying me
thank you for notifying me o my talk page. I was not aware that the British version of english was so different. thank you. I saw your edit and I thought that "junglefowl" was "jungle fowl" also, I have chickens and one of them lays pink eggs. I also wanted you to know that "colour" and "color" mean the same thing I just wanted to change it because I do not want to be idle I also noted that your description of you undoing of my edits was unnecessarily hostile. it is depending on the breed and the hen, of course, but usually and more likely the breed. I was not aware that such minor edits would cause you so much pain. I am sorry if this sounds hostile, but it is not supposed to be. I will be redoing some of my edits with some clarifications. thank you. Firestar9990 (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No pain here, and I didn't think you were under the impression that the Commonwealth spelling had a different meaning from the one used in the US – I assumed you simply thought the US spelling was supposed to be used, which (as you now know) is not the case. --bonadea contributions talk 17:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

May
Thank you for article improvements in May! - DYK my list of people for whose life I'm thankful enough to improve their articles? - I have a FAC open, one of Monteverdi's exceptional works, in memory of Brian who passed me his collected sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Gerda, I do not have much experience of working on FAs, but would sincerely love to see that article featured so I will see if there is anything I can do to help. All the best, --bonadea contributions talk 18:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it's going nicely already, - I may ask next time ;) - today a composer pictured who wrote a triple concerto for violin, harp and double bass, in honour of the composer who died and my brother who plays double bass. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: DECO Online
Hello Bonadea. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of DECO Online, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 cannot be applied to software. Thank you. So Why  10:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

went page is not published how its volation
HOPE YOU ALL CHECK BEFORE ITS PUBLISHED. WHEN ITS NOT PUBLISHED FROM LAST 2 YEARS+ HOW ITS VOILATION. YOU CAN GUIDE ME IF ANY VIOLATE THING IS THERE BEFORE PUBLISHING, DONT KNOW HOW TO HANDLE THIS. WITHOUT ITS PUBLISHED YOU HAVE DELETED MY PAGE WOULD HAVE TOLD TO REMOVE ANY THING OBJECTABLE,

HOPE YOU RE CONSIDER MY REQUEST AND GUIDE/HELP ME TO PART OF WIKI FAMILY.

AS SAID ITS WEB PAGE I WILL REMOVE IT WHAT EVER YOU SAY SIR/MADAM. THANK YOU PLEASE RECONSIDER SHIVA KUMAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiva Kumar Actor (talk • contribs) 12:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * thank you for your message. First of all, I did not delete either of the pages you had created – I tagged them for deletion, and an administrator reviewed my tagging of your user page, agreed with my assessment, and deleted the page. The reasons why the pages were tagged are on your user talk page. I will also copy here what I said in response to your Teahouse question: "Unfortunately it looks like you may have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not a web host or platform for posting personal profiles – there are other websites that do that, but not this one. Wikipedia is meant for encyclopedic articles about notable subjects (and defines notability in very specific ways: these are the notability criteria for actors). In addition, autobiographies should be avoided, that is, if and when you do become notable per Wikipedia's definition of notability, somebody who is not connected to you in any way will probably write an article about you at some point." In other words, it is not a matter of individual sentences or words that could be removed to make the content appropriate. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Pepperfry
Hi Bonadea,

Thanks for your review. I noticed you've tagged the page with the undisclosed payments. As I have stated even before that i have not been paid to make any edits, requesting you to please take it off.-Vishalnagpal123 (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no. --bonadea contributions talk 19:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Would you please elaborate as to why you think i am being paid for this? I've mentioned several times that i've not been compensated to edit the article. I am a company employee and not being directly paid for my edits. I would appreciate any suggestions on how we can fix that. Thank you.-Vishalnagpal123 (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Look forward to your suggestions on this.-Vishalnagpal123 (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * All the relevant information is on your user talk page, including links to relevant policies, and I have no further suggestions to make. You are employed by the company and you are attempting to create the article on their behalf. The company has tried to use Wikipedia as an advertising medium for several years – that, from Wikipedia's point of view, is the only thing that needs to be fixed. It is no coincidence that the article title has been protected from recreation, and I'm afraid I refuse to believe that it is a coincidence that you created your account right after the previous (declared paid) editor tried to remove their paid status from the draft talk page. I notice that Draft:Pepperfry has now been rejected (as opposed to declined), so the discussion is moot anyway. --bonadea contributions talk 11:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've read those policies including WP: PAID and have disclosed my connection with Pepperfry on my user page. I understand the article was added content that did not comply with Wikipedia policies and it is now protected as you stated. We had hired an agency to fix certain issues but they could not fix them up and the page later got deleted. I am apologetic about what has happened before, we did not intend to violate any rules. I work at Pepperfry as a part of the marketing team and this task was assigned to me several weeks ago. I have since been working on it. I would be so grateful If you could assist me or provide me with some direction on what I should do next.-Vishalnagpal123 (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And yet on my talk page here when asked about whether you were being paid to edit you said "I have not been paid to edit anything on Wikipedia". Theroadislong (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, What i am trying to say is i have not been paid by my company or anyone else for creating this page as this is part of my job. I get paid as a salary. Will this be considered a paid editing? if so, then i will be more than happy to state the same on my user page.-Vishalnagpal123 (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is definitely classed as paid editing. You say "I work at Pepperfry as a part of the marketing team and this task was assigned to me several weeks ago" That clearly means you are being paid to edit. Theroadislong (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have made the disclosure on my user page as you stated. Could you please advise me on what i do next?-Vishalnagpal123 (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand you must be busy, but if you could spare some time to review the draft. I did everything as you advised and also made the disclosure on my talk page. Vishalnagpal123 (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your draft was rejected twice, there has been no substantive change in the content so no need to review. Theroadislong (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response . I have made some significant changes to the draft including edits that removed promotional material and unreliable sources. I have also submitted the draft and requesting you to kindly review it. Thank you.Vishalnagpal123 (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to leave it to another reviewer, and please stop using poor Bonadea's user page to contact me. Theroadislong (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason I want to keep my comments here as all the conversation regarding this article has been done here from the start and Boneda is also a part of it. I hope she won't mind me doing so. I have been trying to get this page up for quite a while now and I have done everything taking into consideration your suggestions. I don't understand why you are advising me to leave it to another reviewer, you're also a page reviewer and seem to be well-versed in Wikipedia guidelines and policies. The draft has significantly improved since its last review back in March. I request you to please re-review it and help me get this page up.-Vishalnagpal123 (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you are being paid to edit, I am a volunteer and choose what I want to edit and when, I choose to leave the review to another editor. Theroadislong (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

complain
Hi, I saw some notification named as complain but I couldn't see the contents as it was deleted by you and it was deleted in such a way that I couldn't read the contents even after that. Any specific reason for using such admin privileges by you?!!

Who was this person who sent me this complaint?Dinopce (talk) 09:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not an administrator. What I did was revert a nasty personal attack on another editor, which had been posted to your user talk page. The user who posted the attack was very promptly blocked by an administrator, who also redacted the attack from the edit history. The reason given was RD2 (grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material). I don't know whose sockpuppet the user was, and I don't care. Just be happy that you did not have to be exposed to it! :-) --bonadea contributions talk 10:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Ock Soo Park Wiki
I will assume responsibilities for the changes to the page for Ock Soo Park.

I am updating it out of interest, I listened to him preach and his fame spreads I feel the need to update this. The previous editor Philemon Yoo was a volunteer within his organisation, there are no paid employees.

Before I start, he told me that Wikipedia requires a declaration of some sort in my part. We are by no means professional editors and would appreciate your guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foolishservant (talk • contribs) 23:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Responding on your user talk page with information about COI editing and other things --bonadea contributions talk 08:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Difficult words
Bonadea, why do you keep being so prudent? Stop it! Bishonen &#124; tålk 12:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC).
 * Aw. That's me well and truly told off, then. I guess I should do imprudent things... run with scissors? Sit next to a coughing stranger on the bus? Edit caste related articles? --bonadea contributions talk 18:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that brings a great big smile to my Saturday :-) Thanks to you both. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

ANI
Had to mention you there, in passing, but nothing to worry about. —— Serial # 13:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Expand Wikipedia page
Hi... I will expand Vani Bhojan Wikipedia page Susenaes (talk) 08:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Please I expand don't re-edit the page. Susenaes (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the heads-up. Promotional editing is not allowed on Wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 09:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Article:Prithveesh K. Bhat
Hello Bonadea, regarding this edit; it wasnt fluff, but its a technical info present in all speecubers' articles. Would you agree if its retained in the article? --Gpkp [ u • t • c ] 16:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I think "fluff" was a careless description on my part, to be honest, but I do see why I thought it didn't belong – which is not to say my assessment was correct. I assume that the information you refer to as being technical info that speed cubers all have is his record time of 38 seconds? Yes, that does look like relevant information, but it is only sourced to his own words in this notice, and I think there ought to be a more substantial source in order to have the claim in a Wikipedia article. The other two pieces of text were, first, "...till date has taught over 3,500 children" (taught them what? what time does "till date" refer to, and what is the context?), sourced to this press release, which by the way also seems to claim that his record is 28 seconds... The final snippet was "and is conducting free workshops in many educational institutions" which I do think is pure fluff. It is also not mentioned anywhere in the given source (which on the other hand does say that he solves the cube in 38-40 seconds, and also that he had taught 2000 people at that point...)  So maybe not all fluff, and maybe something there should be in the article, but the sources just doesn't verify the claims!  Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 17:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Promo editors
Hi B, if you happen to remember, at Prajakta Koli there have been numerous attempts to inflate that article with all sorts of promotional stuff. The last three people I blocked from that account were sockpuppets (actually, probably meatpuppets) who work for One Digital Entertainment, the company that represents Koli and others. So if you could be super-aware of promotional-style editing, that would be helpful. I've leaving the article semi-protected mostly as a honeypot to spot the promo teams. Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, thanks for templating the new guy about undisclosed paid editing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Cyphoidbomb – sorry for being so slow to react, it is crazy season in academialand (also known as "end of the semester", with some added bonus stress of having to do everything online.) I will keep an eye out, and I had spotted the connection to the sockmaster... it's good to know I was on the right track there.  All the best, --bonadea contributions talk 20:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

"BeritaSatu Medan" and "O Channel Medan" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect BeritaSatu Medan and O Channel Medan. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 29 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ArdiPras95 (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyvios revdel
Hi, Bonadea. I've revdel'd the copyvios at Sengar and Rajput and given the user a final warning. But I've always wondered what's the use of providing those number codes for edits, such as 951788278 and 959939828 here, since the history doesn't contain them and they're hardly ever any help. Do you happen to know how to use them? Perhaps everybody does except me. The more I slide into the role of "ancient experienced admin", the more embarrassing it becomes to ask. Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC).
 * PS, I can see they're related to the numbers in the URLs, but they're not exactly the same — URLs are of course a little fluid. Sigh. Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC).
 * I use the instructions here – I also find it pretty confusing to be honest, but I think that seems to work to find the right diff. I think the point is that those numbers are unique identifiers of a page version? (This is why it is handy to be just a plain editor, heh!) --bonadea contributions talk 11:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

and Bonadea:: the text that you've revdel'ed appears to have come from History of the rise of the Mahomedan power in India, till the year A.D. 1612, a book published in 1829. It is unlikely that cpyright protections still apply. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

POV-pushing IP in Northern Indian language articles
Hi Bonadea, thank you for stepping in! Just FYI:. –Austronesier (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up – I was not aware of that! --bonadea contributions talk 19:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's whack-a-mole with an unstoppable LTA. Dealing with socks sometimes creates an antagonism that unvoluntarily might take the shape of a biased POV itself ("The sock writes it, so it must be wrong"). I try to avoid to fall into this trap, but don't always succeed. Good thing you have had a fresh look at it, and sort of immediately noticed their CIR-problem too. –Austronesier (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Reverted edit
Hi, Can you please tell me why my added external link was recently removed? I added the following information "The Anacalypsis of Godfrey Higgins in Russian language. Site: arbalettv.com" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Godfrey_Higgins&diff=960460320&oldid=960414333 For the first time ever Godfrey Higgins's Anacalypsis was translated into Russian and I thought it would have been appropriated to add this important link to the article. You have to take this very important aspect and fact into account. The Cat 2020 (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please check this part of the Manual of Style. There are many languages in the world, and every translation (even a first translation) of every work in English into every other language is not encyclopedically relevant to an article about the author of the work. Besides, the link did not provide any information at all, merely a number of uncommented video files which may or may not have contained an audio version of the translation, or a spoken commentary on the translation or the original text or something else. The link clearly did not meet WP:EL. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Article of Sambhaji the king of Maratha Empire
Hello Bonadea, please read this, I have written the following in the talk page of Sambhaji. I have also mentioned it in your talk page to make it sure that you get to read this.

Said article about Sambhaji definitely relies on older references. Sambhaji is historical figure of much mystery, curiosity in his own state of Maharashtra, India as well as globally. This curiosity and mystery arises because his career has not been understood properly due to lack of authentic sources. A fact to support this statement is that, From 1880's to 1960's Sambhaji was the most widely portrayed historical figure in Marathi plays, having more plays based on him even than his father Shivaji. The playwright's and historians based their knowledge on whatever sources were available at that time and hence they have defamed Sambhaji blatantly. This created a false image of Sambhaji which is not backed by proper research into the topic. The sources available on Sambhaji's reign were very few before 1960's. They were based primarily on the 'Chitnis Bakhar' which was written by 'Malhar Ramrao Chitnis' who was a direct descendant of 'Balaji Chitnis' who was executed by Sambhaji in 1681 for conspiring against the empire with some of the fellow ministers. Due to this many reputed Marathi historians well as reputed British(eg - Grant Duff) and other Western historians have also based their work on Chitnis Bakhar. Hence they have portrayed Sambhaji in a bad light. This has resulted in great spread of misinformation about Sambhaji in the masses. Many modern Indian as well as Western historians such as 'J.L.Mehta' have based their work wrongly on the shoulders of these older reputed Marathi and Western historians. I am not challenging the scholarly reputations of these scholars such as JL Mehta. They are definitely reputed scholars but they have definitely based their works on several false refences. Proper research about Sambhaji's career begun in the 1960's. V.S.Bendre spent 40 years examining actual papers, and reliable contemporary references and released his book on Sambhaji in 1960. The book had caused great storm in Maharashtra as this book portrayed Sambhaji in a whole different light. This was the first book which wrote about the capabilities and character of Sambhaji in a positive manner. This book revolutionized the existing belief about Sambhaji and many historians started researching on Sambhaji seriously. Historians such as Dr.Kamal Gokhale were on the forefront along with Bendre. In fact Sambhaji's Samadhi(memorial) at Vadhu-Budruk was discovered by Bendre in 1960. Before that nobody ever knew about his Samadhi. This shows the general ignorance about the ruler before 1960's. Post 1960's progressively many new contemporary sources have been unearthed and published by Marathi Historians. Some 300 odd letters from the reign of Sambhaji are available to this date. Many books which portray Sambhaji in a positive manner have been written after 2000 based on new and proper research. These have cleared many false allegations against Sambhaji. Due to recent, still many of these works have not been translated into English yet hence modern western historians are quite ignorant about Sambhaji and his reign. Historians such as A.D.Pisurlekar have examined contemporary British, Portuguese and Sanskrit sources which actually show the capabilities of Sambhaji. The Portuguese papers describe him as a 'war like prince'. A letter of British governor in Mumbai in 1684 states that Sambhaji is the ruling boss in the region and no one can challenge his authority. French traveller Abbey Carrey(I don't know the proper spelling) has also written about Sambhaji's intelligence in 1672. Almost nothing was known about Sambhaji's political, military capabilities and administration before 1960. These details were unearthed after the proper research began. That's why you will find that older references about Sambhaji's reign only focus on his character and never focused on his military and political and administrative achievements. Hence you will find very less data about his battles and campaigns in those older books. As if no important battle was fought during Sambhaji's reign, and Sambhaji did not have any successes apart from his heroic death. These references have blatantly ignored battles and conflicts during the reign of Sambhaji. But this cannot be true as Aurangzeb the Mughal Emperor (one of the three gunpowder empires of the medieval ages) had arrived in Deccan in 1681 to conquer the Deccan Plateau with a five lakh strong army. Deccan was geared for a showdown between Sambhaji and Aurangzeb and both wanted allies. Aurangzeb formed an anti-Sambhaji alliance with the Siddis, Portuguese and Mysore. While Sambhaji also formed an alliance with Adilshahi and Qutubshahi. Sambhaji defeated Siddis, Portuguese and Mysore in his campaigns which became known only after 1960. His victory at the Battle of Trichinopoly against Chikkadevaraya of Mysore in 1682 is a great example of military genius. Sambhaji actively supported Adilshahi and Qutubshahi militarily against Mughal invasions and sieges. Sambhaji also fought several battles with the Mughals in 1680-89. Sambhaji and his generals defeated the Mughals, harassed them, ransacked their supply chains and reduced them to starvation multiple times. Aurangzeb's two pincer moves in 1683 and 1684 respectively with forces having strength upto 1 lakh were defeated back by Sambhaji and his generals using guirella tactics and avoiding pitched battle. Sambhaji fought along the various borders very effectively. Managing multiple warfronts simultaneously and managing his limited army and resources efficiently. Due to Sambhaji's administrative policies and military capabilities Aurangzeb was never able to break through the core of Maratha Empire In the Sahyadris in his nine-year reign. Sambhaji increased the warfronts to a wider scale to negate mughal numerical superiority. Sambhaji's field army was close to 70,000 pitted against 5,00,000 mughal troops. Sambhaji divided his army into small groups to harass mughal army and ransack supply chains using the mobility of Maratha light cavalry. He placed garrisons atop important passes in the Sahyadris to secure his control. He strengthened the chain of Maratha forts in Sahyadris. He avoided pitched battles against the mughals. However he along with his 30,000 men defeated a 35,000 strong Mughal army in battle of Kalyan for recapturing Kalyan in 1682. Overall the Marathas fought at least 65 battles during Sambhaji's reign which were mostly won by the Marathas. According to older references if Sambhaji was drunkard, womanizer and addict then who fought such a overwhelmingly strong enemy such as Aurangzeb with limited resources?. How did the Marathas even survive the attack of a half a million strong army? How did the Marathas manage to control the coast against Portuguese and British when all their major resources were directed to fight Aurangzeb? All these new facts about Sambhaji have been unearthed only in the past 60 years. Various authors such as Shivaji Sawant, Vishwas Patil, Sadashiv Shivde, Namdeorao Jadhav, S.A.Bahekar, Jaysingrao Pawar have further discovered new sources. A lot of research still needs to be done on the person. Sambhaji was definitely a highly capable ruler who was definitely not a drunkard, womanizer, sensual pleasure seeker. As he was constantly engaged in warfare for his nine years. Sambhaji was politically sound. Sambhaji tried to form various alliances against Aurangzeb. He even tried to modernize his navy. He supported many new generals such as Santaji Ghorpade, Dhanaji Jadhav, Kanhoji Angre were promoted by Sambhaji who went on to became distinguished military commanders In the future. Sambhaji managed the drought situation in Maharashtra in 1687-88 really well by adhering to strict disciplinary policies. He gave certain subsidies to poor people during the drought. Sambhaji definitely played a great role in the solidifying the Maratha Empire. Sambhaji continued all his father's major policies throughout his reign from 1680-89. None of these facts have been mentioned in those old sources. New reliable sources (first class contemporary sources) contain all those facts about Sambhaji. Many new historians have also written that Sambhaji was not running behind women in his youth. He was great scholar and has 7 books to his credit all of which were written from 1670-76, the time when older sources describe him to be drunken and busy with women. The older sources also don't mention anything about this 1672 campaign against the Koli Kings of Jawhar and Ramnagar. He took part in active battles since 1672. He was a busy prince who handled foreign envoys in Shivaji's abscence. If he was busy taking such responsibilities at such a young age then how can he be busy with women and drunk constantly? This is true that no conclusive evidence has been found about Sambhaji's character. But the logical interpretation of the situation definitely makes one think about the capabilities and character of Sambhaji as a ruler. The logical interpretation leads us to think that Sambhaji was not addicted, womanizer and rash infact he was an alert king with great military prowess and administrative abilities and political foresight. Sambhaji did not lose any important Maratha fort when he was alive. All these factors have come into recent consideration by modern historians. Sambhaji's portrayal is getting positive day by day in Maharashtra as new sources are being discovered with time. English is a global language and not much of this work has been translated into English. Hence English writers are still considering the older sources which have been already translated into English before. Hence English writers except Robinson have not written positively about Sambhaji. Even though these Marathi historians may not have papers presented internationally still they have definitely discovered the truth about Sambhaji. This is not a biased point of view glorifying Sambhaji because I have read both the point of views(positive and negative) about Sambhaji. Please do consider my additions to the article based on these new Maratha sources. I keep on posting them time to time on Wikipedia. Please read this @MatthewVanitas, @Bonadea Thank you so much.

Charvak157 (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Charvak157 (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Bonadea, I have posted this on the talk page the article on Sambhaji, in the discussion Sambhaji- old references vs new references, please read it

Hello everyone, extending my argument about validity of old references about Sambhaji, I am presenting the comments on reliability of sources on the Marathas written by reputed historians V.S.Bendre and V.K.Rajwade, from the preface of Bendrey's book 'Malojiraje and Shahaji Maharaj' (pg 31-40) These will make it clear why I have been opposing the reliance of this article on the older references. This is a great extensive commentary on the reliability of the sources on the Maratha history.

Start 'We must understand the historical truth by assessing the quality, strengths and weaknesses of the evidences used to write historical writings. These weaknesses are of two types 1) If the writer is biased, then he uses incomplete or wrong information and his writing will be weak and unreliable. 2) The accuracy of historical writings decreases with an increase in the time interval between the historical event and the time of writing. We also have to consider the human tendency of writing history from the author's own point of view.

People who are just writing the history and are not related to concerned historical figure only write about existing beliefs. Their writings cannot be considered as reliable as the writings of the people who were related to the historical figure. Hence, contemporary as well post-event 'bakhars' and 'haqeekats' are 'third class sources'. While contemporary reports and news letters are 'second class sources' In these second class sources, official newsletters, 'shakavalis', autobiographies or information deliberately acquired by other kingdoms etc. can be considered to be more reliable as compared other folklore type second class sources.

Evidences such as Official Letters of the officers, Letters of the families related to the historical event, contemporary accounts statements etc. can be considered as 'first class statements' for judging the historical truth.

By using the above principles in the case of the Maratha Empire 1) The letters of Mughals which tell the account of the Marathas are not as reliable as the letters of Shivaji-Sambhaji, as they already contain a biased point of view against their enemies. Still, it is wrong to ignore them completely.

2) The British newsletters about the Marathas were a good 'second class source' till the point when they were writing it from an impartial point of view. But, since the 18th century, when the British became the competitors of the Marathas, their letters started becoming more and more biased against the Marathas. Hence their reliability fell considerably.

The 'third class sources' such as 'Bakhars' and 'Haqeekats' are often written at the will of a person. Hence they are not backed by proper evidence, and should not be used to reconstruct history.

V.K.Rajwade in his book on 'sources of Maratha history' written around 1910, has clearly mentioned that 'You take any Bakhar in your hand and you will rarely find a bakhar having correct judgement of timeline of historical events. Imaginory Relations of mythological stories, Lack of printing etc. has resulted in creeping of many errors in those 'bakhars'. These bakhars often have exaggerated events without checking their historical validity.'

The bakhars have often given very short informations about 1) Pre-Shivaji and contemporary Muslim kingdoms. 2) Any campaign of Shivaji. 3) The family inter-relations and conditions in Bhosale or the Peshwa family. This information is completely confusing, contrasting, unrealistic, irrelevant that it can never be considered as true without the support of other sources.

If we go on trust the bakhars without the support of 'first class sources' then we are not able to differentiate between the true and false informations given in the Bakhars. Hence, if we write the history based on the Bakhars only, then due to lack of reliable sources, our attempts will mostly fail. Plus even if an event is described in the same way in multiple bakhars, still it cannot be considered true by the principle of majority. Hence, even one 'first class source' such as 'original document' is enough to negate the majority of the Bakhars. Hence, the principle of majority does not work here. A single 'original document' can be trusted more than any Maratha or foreign Bakhars or Bakhar like accounts.

V.K.Rajwade has written about the Bakhars that the Bakhars within themselves can be classified as third class, second class and first class respectively. All these Bakhars are useful in some way. 1) Sabhasad Bakhar 2) Malhar Ramrao's Bakhar 3) Shivdigvijaya Are the three most important Bakhars. Like other Bakhars, these Bakhars are also plagued in several aspects such as wrong judgement of timeline, ignorance about the capabilities of the ruler, exaggeration, lack of organized information etc. It is totally necessary to reach out till the roots of the Bakhar's writings to verify it properly before trusting them as history. Available versions of the Bakhars are often second or third versions of the original one, and hence are corrupted with addition of new information.

1) Sabhasad Bakhar is completely written on the basis of pure recall of information, hence it cannot be considered as a completely reliable source.

2) Malhar Ramrao's Bakhar also has certain shortcomings hence cannot be considered as valid.

3) Shivdigvijaya uses old letters but the author was not well trained in organising the information, hence it cannot be considered as a completely reliable source. Hence these 3 major Bakhars are not at all 'first class sources' for examining the Maratha history. The Muslim 'Tawarikhs' also seem to have similar shortcomings and hence are not a reliable source of information.

All these problems give rise to the question that, How can we verify the information in the Bakhars? The answer is Contemporary Marathi, Persian, Kannada, English, Portuguese letters are the only sources to crosscheck the information in the Bakhars. If these are not found then we will not have comprehensive results. And to date very few of such letters have been found.

Reputed historians such as Grant Duff also trusted these Bakhars. Hence information written by him or his students cannot be considered as reliable. These new sources of original letters have not been discovered yet, hence we can trust the information in the Bakhars only if it is verified with an original source.

The reader often fails to understand the historical truth after relying on the Bakhars. And every figure in the Maratha history has been affected to a level due to lack of original sources. Many Bakhar writers did not have access to multiple original sources which limited their sourcing, and led them to insert Imaginory events in the history.

In case of Chatrapati Sambhaji, I (V.S.Bendrey) have compared events and descriptions in the Bakhars and descriptions of the same events in 'original documents' to prove how the descriptions in the Bakhars are Imaginory, Unrealistic and exaggerated.

(My own personal note{charvak157} - I don't have the book written by Bendre on Sambhaji with me right now, I will mention all these comparisons by Bendrey as soon as I get the book.)

In his conclusion V.K.Rajwade has mentioned that The sources of Maratha History have been written, compiled and published in a disorganised manner. These sources should have been presented in an organized manner. These poorly verified sources can definitely fool the person who is making his assumptions about the history on the basis of these sources.'

End Chhatrapati Sambhaji's history has been written by most authors such as Grant Duff, and other reputed historians such as Jadunath Sarkar, G.S.Sardesai etc who worked well before 1960's obviously had to rely on whatever sources were available in the forms of the Bakhars. As I have mentioned in my previous talk, authentic sources about Sambhaji have been discovered only after 1960. And most of these have not been translated into English. Hence, the earlier reputed historians whose work on the Marathas is considered to be seminal were not able to judge Sambhaji properly. These old Bakhars and sources have a portrayed Sambhaji like an imaginary, fiction like character in malicious way, ignoring his capabilities and contributions as a ruler. The bakhars often unrealistic accounts about Sambhaji which bewilder the reader. There are many examples supporting this. I will state one example here. According to the Bakhars, Sambhaji executed his stepmother Soyarabai. By sealing her in a wall alive. But 'Sambhaji's letter to Bakre Shastri of Kudal' in which he expresses grief over the death of Soyarabai. If he executed Soyarabai then why would he grieve for her death? Plus evidences indicating that Soyarabai was alive much after the execution of ministers involved in the plot are available.

Such misinformations about his character have been proven wrong in the past 50-60 years. And exploits of his military, political and administrative achievements have come to the fore in these time which were completely ignored before.

I sign off for today, and complete my today's argument. @MatthewVanitas, @Bonadea, @JonathanSammy please read this. Thank you so much.

Charvak157 (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC) Charvak157 (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * please do not post these large blocks of text to several places. I have Talk:Sambhaji on my watchlist, and contribute there as and when I have the time and inclination to do so. Posting the same text here will not make me more likely to read it, and I would not comment on it here anyway since a discussion is taking place on the article talk page. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok fine, noted. Charvak157 (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusha.daware
Hey there, in case you are interested, I've opened an SPI about the brand new suspected promo puppet at Prajakta Koli. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know – ooh, I am esteemed! :-) --bonadea contributions talk 20:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Audiobook
One has to wonder. Maybe "citation needed" means "any random citation". Good catch. -- Green  C  15:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Question
Do you have any problem with me, if I make a contribution, you remove it. Do I have any enmity? I put the YouTuber stub on the YouTubers page and you removed it. Have I made a mistake? If there is a mistake, I apologize. My opinion is not to accuse you. Sorry if you feel bad I request you to contribute to the Amit Bhadana article. Hindu Viki (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Stub templates don't belong on articles that are not stubs. And I have done plenty to fix that article – you are the one who is paid to write about him, and you should absolutely not be telling volunteers to do it for you. --bonadea contributions talk 06:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Addition to the above – OK, I have taken a bit of time to go through the article and remove some of the most blatantly inappropriate content and sources. --bonadea contributions talk 08:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey sorry about the bad edit on The Bad Seeds. One question
Just curious, were there any other countries other than Lebanon where these events could have taken place? I'm not contesting the "unspecified Middle Eastern country" part, that's certainly the most accurate description, but I'd like to learn if these events would fit historically anywhere other than Lebanon. I think it was a loose reference to Sabra and Shatila Massacre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadhu Cat (talk • contribs) 23:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 39, May – June 2020 
 * Library Card Platform
 * New partnerships
 * ProQuest
 * Springer Nature
 * BioOne
 * CEEOL
 * IWA Publishing
 * ICE Publishing
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

regarding edits
you tell me what did I do wrong in editing the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.57.202.46 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You kept changing the information against what the sources say, you kept adding non-neutral wording, and you did not discuss your changes on the article talk page when they were reverted (see the edit warring information posted to your user talk page). --bonadea contributions talk 09:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

firstly, NPOV is neutral point of view, let me tell you there is difference. India's point of view is that Nanga Parbat is in India, & Pakistan point of view is that it is in Pakistan. That's why neutral POV must be that both countries should be mention and there is already a citation which says that area is disputed between the countries. By deleting the name India you are taking side of other country, is that your NPOV policy of Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.57.202.46 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Clearly the source says that the total Kashmir area is disputed between India, Pakistan and China so why not give the credit to the countries which are claiming the area — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.57.202.46 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * No, you have misunderstood what NPOV means. You can read up on it here – and surely you do not believe that "Pakistan Occupied Kashmir" is neutral phrasing? In the article List of highest mountains on Earth, the entry for K2 says very clearly that the region where the mountain is located is claimed by India, so adding India a second time is superfluous and misleading. In List of mountain peaks by prominence and Nanga Parbat you added "India" with Encyclopædia Britannica's article about Jammu and Kashmir as a source, but I'm not sure you read the source properly since it says that Nanga Parbat is located "in the Pakistani sector of Kashmir" (so not in India). (There is no "credit" – I'm not sure which word you were after there.) In any case, you missed one main point: when your edits are reverted, in particular when they are repeatedly reverted, you need to take the discussion to the article's talk page. Posting your arguments at another user's talk page is not as useful, since most people who are interested in the discussion won't see it. --bonadea contributions talk 09:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sabotage
Hell there thanks for fixing up the article a little, it needs it. I attempted some but decided to remove my contribution. would prefer if you removed my contribution of the definitions. LordAgincourt (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020
Hello ,

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference. In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
 * Your help can make a difference
 * Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate
 * Discussions and Resources
 * A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
 * Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
 * A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
 * Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

COI Relix
I have made several edits related to Relix. As I mentioned, I am a fan of the magazine but not involved (also a fan of the music it covers, like David Goldflies; you suggested I work on other bios in our talk so I did). As you mentioned, I am new to Wikipedia and clearly not doing this right. I am happy to delete the Mike Greenhaus draft and, if you like, will not edit anything directly related to Relix or the people you mentioned. But please don't block or blacklist the Relix wiki bio or other subjects involved and bring them into this as I don't want to hurt them. I came to you in good faith--we first connected on the Teahouse as I was trying to learn about this process--and have been in communication with you. I respect that you are being a diligent editor but can we leave this as I won't go near those pages and, if you think I am not being faithful, you can flag me. As, the Mule article you mentioned, I did link to and the authro's name, Greenhaus, is cited at the bottom of the article. I have not resubmitted the bio draft for review by the way and, as I said, am happy to delete it all together Caryplace7 (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added a link to your comment here from the noticeboard discussion. If you have further comments, please make them there. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 16:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for moving that link over. I replied to the message as well and I will continue any discussion on that page. I am happy to continue any discussion with you and have tried my best to be direct and honest with you. I wish we could continue our discourse without bringing the page of the subjects I am writing about into it. But I happy to do what is best practices. I am also sorry that we got off on the wrong foot--again I reached out for guidance originally and was trying to be as transparent as possible. Caryplace7 (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Improements for page Prajakta Koli
hi B ! before I do any edit on page prajakta koli i want to ask you these questions- 1. if adding logo is an option for youtube infobox personality then pls let me add it 2. in the career section its important to mention how many videos she created since 2015 so should i ? 3. other youtuber like 'bhuvan bam' also have a subheading of SONGS so has she so should we implement it .? 4. career para is mixed with AWARDS section, can i seperate it ? 5. readers find AWARDS table more attractive to read instead of text, table ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhaas singh (talk • contribs) 09:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * In general you should use the article talk page (not a user talk page) to discuss possible changes or additions to an article – please use Talk:Prajakta Koli in future, and avoid editing the article directly.
 * 1. There is no need for a logo in a biographical article, and it looks like that the parameter is almost never used. The article is about her, not about her channel.
 * 2. "How many videos she created since 2015" – a) what is the independent source for that figure? The YT channel itself is not an acceptable source. b) why and how is it "important"? c) Figures that are likely to change quickly should always be avoided.
 * 3. Bhuvan Bam has no such heading, and there is nothing in this article or any of the sources I've looked at to indicate that Koli is known as a singer.
 * 4 and 5. Please don't create a separate "awards and recognitions" section or similar. There are several reasons why your previous attempts to do that have been reverted (by several different editors). A biographical article can have such a section for notable awards, but it is usually more neutral and reader friendly to include the information in the running text. If she receives multiple notable awards, such a section could be included, but in a short article about a YouTuber who has not in fact received any notable awards it would only look like an attempt to make it look as if she has a large number of awards/accomplishments/recognitions. --bonadea contributions talk 09:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your editing notes on "Effron White".
Hi Bonadea,

Thank you for clarifying so much in your edit notes regarding my questions about the article on the real person, Effron White. You are right. I am new to the community and, just finding the policies to read to learn from can be a challenge. Your explanation was super clear in "layman's" terms. Now I have a direction to go. Best!! Lauren Effron White (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

National Varieties Of English Response
Hey, you recently sent me a message regarding my edits to the page "People In The Room" I apologize for the mistake. I put it through a grammar checker when I edit articles, and it came back saying that those words were misspelled, I didn't know they were different types of english.

GhostWRLD (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Please do not ever use spell checkers or grammar checkers at Wikipedia, not unless you double check every suggestion they make! They are clumsy tools and often mark perfectly acceptable usage as incorrect, or vice versa. I'm guessing that it was also a grammar/spell checker that led to this change. Grammar checkers are often quite bad at analysing phrases of the type "floodplain and fluvial channel environments" – the AI interprets it as [floodplain] and [fluvial channel environments] and believes that "floodplain" is a separate noun which is missing an indefinite article. Similarly, a spell checker doesn't recognise many unusual words, for instance "cycadeoids". I was not familiar with that word, either, but in that situation we need to check (and here it was not hard to do that, since "cycadeoids" had a link to a Wikipedia article). This sounds a little cheesy, but the best thing about editing Wikipedia, for me, is how much I learn all the time :-) --bonadea contributions talk 22:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Bhaukaal, why ?
This article has been misdirected in its entirety. The article on which it is directed has nothing to do with this article. Both articles are independent of each other. I have given many sources for this and none of them proves that where it is directed is correct. Such guidance hurts who ruins someone's hard work all at once. You all should see it again and keep the status quo of its former and release it as a separate independent article. The article written by me is Bhaukaal, a 2020 television web series based on an IPS officer. Ghulaam has absolutely nothing to do with it. To direct any article to any other article without any reason or sufficient evidence. It is like a bad joke. Pour water on one's hard work. Arun singh Yaduvanshi (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you post this here – I simply removed a duplicate post you had made at the Teahouse. Bhaukaal has been redirected to Ghulaam since 2017; you replaced the redirect with this and since that is not even close to being a Wikipedia article, another editor restored the redirect (which was the status quo). Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 20:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Sir, but both Bhaukaal and Ghulaam are separate themes, there is no relation between them. Bhaukaal is a 2020 television web series while Ghulaam is 2017. It is both independent from each other. Why was misdirection done then, can you tell? I wrote this only to seek help from you. Arun singh Yaduvanshi (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Ghulaam was apparently supposed to be called Bhaukaal, so the article about Ghulaam was first created under that title and then moved to its new title. When an article is moved, a redirect is usually created. So there was never any misdirection involved. --bonadea contributions talk 21:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)