User talk:Bonadea

Not conflict of interest

I have not written an article about myself but about the actress Dorothy Gibson. I have disclosed the fact that I am the author of a biography of Dorothy Gibson and I use my own name as a handle on Wikipedia so I am not attempting to misrepresent myself. Finally, I am not advertising myself but providing information about the subject of this article. Best wishes, Randy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy-bigham (talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

When you add your own name to Wikipedia articles, and add references to your own books, that is by definition a conflict of interest. As explained on your user talk page, if you believe that your book would be a useful resource in a particular article, you should make an edit request on that article's talk page. Uninvolved editors can then make a case-by-case decision. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 19:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of interest - Admission essay

I have added extra information to the "Application essays" page as I find the original article not fully completed. There was missing a lot of crucial information and facts that determine the content of the article. I have added the source eesayedge.com as a trusted source that is well-known in the field of admission essays. I used this source as the reference as it isn't a bias one. The text that I have written for the article is informative and useful exactly for people who visit the page of this article. My point of view is neutral in this text, and I don't represent subjective opinions regarding the topic. Each paragraph that I have added contains the content that matches the title. Thus, these points are suitable for the article. --Sophia Brakeman (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Sophia Brakeman

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a how-to-write-your-application-essay site. The content you added was not in accordance with the formal tone of an encyclopedia article. Please declare any connection witht he website you have repeatedly cited in accordance with Wikipedia's terms of use. Acroterion (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

As Acroterion says, the text was not appropriate for an encyclopedia – that's not strange, since much of it seemed to be direct quotes from the source, which is a commercial service, not an informational site. It should not be used as a reference on Wikipedia. The text was also very specific indeed about details that presumably apply to the American educational system. A Wikipedia article is not a step-by-step process description, and it should have a global perspective, unless the article has a specific local/regional focus. --bonadea contributions talk 21:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI

Sinebot is also a troll! El_C 16:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah-ha! Suddenly everything makes sense!¹ --bonadea contributions talk 16:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

¹maybe not everything.

Well, a troll-auxiliary in that it always seem to favour trolls over good faith newbies. El_C 17:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, January – February 2021

• New partnerships: PNAS, De Gruyter, Nomos
• 1Lib1Ref
• Library Card

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

YOU ARE NOT WELCOME TO POST ON MY TALK PAGE AGAIN

I will only say this once. per policy I removed your talk page comment. Keep your blatant POV edit warring on the page that we are discussing.

== Disruptive editing ==

Your recent edits to have been disruptive. You opened a RfC yourself to determine if some specific content should be included; five editors gave policy based arguments why it should not be included and four of them (myself included) also commented on the unclear wording, with a sixth editor requesting a re-wording of the RfC without giving an opinion about the content. Nobody argued in favour of the inclusion. What happened next was that you restored all that content and, a few minutes later, withdrew the RfC. Closing it because the wording was unclear was a good call, but you can't simply ignore the actual consensus that did emerge. Other disruptive changes include edit summaries such as which had no connection to the content of the edit.

You have been previously warned about ownership issues with this article, and you have to pay attention to this: ask questions if you do not understand what people mean, read up on Wikipedia policy ( indicates that you are not aware of what verifiability and WP:SYNTH mean), and accept that the consensus may be in favour of something you do not personally support. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 09:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Infinitepeace (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)