User talk:Bonadea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-commerce_in_India

I have tried to correct a biased opinion presented as a fact in the wikipedia page. The mentioned opinion is unsubstantiated. Visiting the page for the first time a few days ago, I provided inputs regarding the existing companies operating in web hosting domain. It is not a single website I am talking about here, instead mentioning few at the top of my head, out of many service providers in the industry (talking about an industry in India).

I cannot understand why a cited material instead of a biased opinion is being categorized as soapboxing or advertisement repeatedly.

I am new to the rules and proper method / process. So if that has been done incorrectly, please guide me instead of warnings! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.38.63 (talk) 07:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC) The best thing to do would have been to remove the problematic content instead of replacing it with other unsourced content, which was also promotional. I removed most of the paragraph in question since I agree with you that it was written like someone's opinion, and had been lacking sources for at least five years. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 07:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit, it does look proper now. But I have a question, there are atleast 5-10 different companies in the grocery section in online grocery section in India. This same topic also has statements like "Amazon has also entered grocery segment with its Kirana now in Bangalore and is also planning to enter in various other cities like Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai and faces stiff competition with Indian startups." Why should it matter in Indian context / is not a promotion by Amazon affiliated writers? Because Amazon is not the first to start that category, not present in most of the Indian towns for grocery, nor have the highest current revenue (May 2018) in grocery in any of the cities they are in.

I encounter similar statements all over Wikipedia, hugely biased but escaping the attention of contributors. 106.51.38.63 (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Amit

Vijay Shekhar Sharma

Please follow wikipedia policies and stop re-adding templates as you did here.

As per WP:WTRMT, Some neutrality-related templates, such as COI (associated with the conflict of interest guideline) and POV (associated with the neutral point of view policy), strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page), to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, the template can be removed

I hope you will correct your mistake and remove the template. Thanks. --Xzinger (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Nsmutte?

Is the power Nsmutte? Obvious sock but I'm not sure of the master. —SpacemanSpiff 03:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi SpacemanSpiff if you do suspect that specific user of being a sock, I think we will have to open some XFD's which were closed by the editor. This was more like a FYI. Sorry I did not want to butt into the conversation. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: no, I'm sure it's not nsmutte. The disruption is different, and they write differently as well. I agree that it looks like a returning editor but I don't know who it would be. @Adamgerber80: that editor should not be closing XfDs anyway, since WP:NAC makes it clear that nacs should only be done by experienced editors. I reopened two closures - were there more? --bonadea contributions talk 07:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I thought so too, I haven't looked at all the NACs yet but I think there's more than you re-opened, might need a mass reopen, which is what Adamgerber is referring to I think. Looking more at it, it looks like that recent Arbcom candidate who was community banned during the election process. **Den Jenk ** or some weird ass name. Maybe a CU will get to look at it sooner rather than later, it's just a waste of community time.—SpacemanSpiff 09:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: and @Bonadea: This is which the user closed - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Indian Line of Control strike. There is also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knox Fortune but this seems to be some weird behavior. Full disclosure: I participated in the first one and voted "Keep" and the used did close it as "Keep" but I feel this won't end well and needs an experienced admin. This area (India-Pakistan) articles has turned into a virtual battle ground from editors on both sides and this AFD will need constant admin monitoring given that the last one saw WP:Votestacking from both POVs. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver—unless they're deliberately trying to appear non-native to Britain. Also, ADJEAD wrote >80 articles—none of which were on sport of any kind. And, again, their interaction is (so far) non-existant. But: this editor's early edits are certainly—professional, shall we say. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 14:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh boy, their NAC of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Indian Line of Control strike was even more disruptive, given that they had !voted in the discussion and then removed their !vote in order to close the discussion with yet another supervote... I reverted it. The Knox Fortune one is weird but doesn't need reverting as nobody had participated in the discussion in the five minutes that elapsed between VP's creating and closing it. I very much hope they will get the message about not closing any more AfDs. --bonadea contributions talk 16:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Need a Help

I have done more than 100 edits and my account is more than 4 months older, but their is no 'confirmed User' tag on my account, Please Help me to get that "Confirmed User" flag on my page. SwagLevelHigh (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@SwagLevelHigh: sorry, I am not an administrator and can't change editing privileges. In any case you are already autoconfirmed. --bonadea contributions talk 07:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• responded here User_talk:DBigXray#Need_a_Help --DBigXray 11:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hypnosis

Hi Bonadea

The article entered was an update to the users new url. it is relevant to the topic and the author is well respected and Adv Dip Hyp M.I.H.A. It should be reinstated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrpetreli (talk • contribs) 19:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that it was an update of an existing link, but it should never have been added in the first place. It added no value or information, and violated this. --

bonadea contributions talk 19:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah OK thank you.

Olivia Palermo page

Hi Bonadea, Thanks for feedback/corrections on the Olivia Palermo page. No COI here, I'm just new to this and trying to navigate correctly. I appreciate the feedback. I was going to continue working on that page, so welcome your continued input. Thanks!--Homerseditor (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I am justing posting achievements

Hey,

I am just posting achievements not an advertisement. However you need to write only about the Parul University and the page in the name of Parul University, while you have written about Jayesh Patel. You can create a separate page for Jayesh Patel and about theirs bad acts.

It is totally wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Compareseodelhi (talk • contribs) 05:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No, your edits removed sourced information about what the head of the university did in his capacity of head of the university, which is relevant for the article. Neutrally phrased and sourced info about achievements would be ok to add (without removing the sourced criticism) but not promotional text. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 05:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

ANI

Not a problem, I've had the same issues for the last hour or so as well. GiantSnowman 13:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Help Me

I am confused were to add links so can you tell me what type of articles is appropriate for adding links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anshul.sharma1998 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Anshul.sharma1998: Please do not add any links to your own website to any Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately, the site does not meet these requirements, and you have added links as references where the link did not in fact support the article content at all. I'm afraid you will need to find other places to promote your site, because Wikipedia is not the right place for it. --bonadea contributions talk 15:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

But I have seen so many refrences which have links of website only for promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anshul.sharma1998 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Sadly, that happens. Such spam references are removed as and when they are spotted. It is not a reason to add more inappropriate links :-) --bonadea contributions talk 18:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

If I write a unique article but it was already present at my website then it must be allowed or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anshul.sharma1998 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't quite understand what you mean. If you yourself write an article on your website, you should not link to it from Wikipedia because it is a conflict of interest to do so. I'm afraid artificial-future.com does not look like a reliable source per Wikipedia's definition of such sources and so it should not be used as a reference, nor should it be added as an external link. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 11:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I am saying that if i write a new unique article for wikipedia without any externel link then it must be alowed or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anshul.sharma1998 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see. If you write a new article at Wikipedia, it must have reliable sources to support the information. Please read Wikipedia:Your first article before starting to write an article. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 06:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Paran Bandopadhyay

Thanks for checking the recent edits to Paran Bandopadhyay. The same IP has added the actor to credits in several film articles today. It's not my subject area so I don't whether these are valid; you may wish to take a look. IMDB generally doesn't list the actor in these films, but it may be that IMDB is incomplete and the IP is correct. Thanks, Certes (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Certes: hi and thanks for your message. This is a user who, over the last month or so, has been using different IPs in the same range to add a few different actors in South Indian cinema to movies where they can't be found in any official cast lists - it is possible that some of their edits are correct but many of them are in fact completely wrong. There is a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Rudranil Ghosh. I haven't gone through the individual movie articles edited by this IP, mainly because I haven't had time to do so yet, but I elected to roll back all the edits to the Paran Bandopadhyay article even though it is just barely possible that he did appear in some of the movies. --bonadea contributions talk 11:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't spot the previous dubious contributions. I see you've asked the experts to consider a mass rollback there, so I'll leave the WikiProject to handle it. I appreciate the problem: I keep my eye on a similar fantasist who edits American film articles. Certes (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello Bonadea, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

• Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

• A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

• There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

• Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

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

News

• Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
• The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Number of participants

The bee's official instagram page says 516 Erfson (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Replied on article talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 15:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I mentioned you at ANI

Yourfav (talk · contribs): They're not really getting the point of the encyclopedia, I fear. Acroterion (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Deary, deary me. Thanks for the heads-up - I hadn't kept up with that user, I think they gave up on me when I removed their post from my talk page. I admire your patience and calm! I am absolutely appalled at their attitude and what they say. So much belligerence from an account who only edits articles on peace keeping... I don't think the irony is lost on anybody. --bonadea contributions talk 06:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sock stripping

Greetings. The edit you reverted on that wretched AfD was merely a stripping of wikilinks posted by the sockpuppet. Not only those links mostly lead nowhere but they clutter up space and divert attention. There is, of course, no question of altering in any way what the sockpuppet wrote. Their arguments are null and void, per policy; we allow them up (in a struck form) instead of deleting them completely but we do not need the drudgery of their detritus. -The Gnome (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I do understand why you edited their posts, but that discussion will soon be archived - the socks' posts are, as you say, irrelevant in the discussion, but not touching other users' posts as long as those posts are not violating any central policy is still important, to my mind. And it does fill a function to be able to look at exactly what those socks have written, and how they wrote it, when future socks show up on the horizon (how's that for a mixed metaphor!) Keep up the good work. --bonadea contributions talk 20:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not disagree with anything you say, except about the links part. We should be leaving up all sock verbiage (I disagree with admins deleting completely sock votes as, for example, here) but the refs & wikilinks they invoke, I believe, are to be deleted as they're just time-wasting traps and add to confusion. But it's no big deal. Take care! -The Gnome (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Reference

Due to the previous source had been taken down , due to unknown reason . Thus I decided to print down the webpage but not expose the website . http://www.5u5.ru/articles/articles-soc/93-1med.html .The pdf is a translated version of this article which had published in russia newspaper . Could this be a source ? Alexson 97 (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Online sources die, newspapers change their internal linking structure, sometimes they remove older archives - these things are very common. The vague statement in the Wikipedia article could not be sourced with the text you added as a source, however, not even if the original reference (information of when and where it was published) was provided. And to be clear, that text can't be used to support any kind of more specific allegations, either - not against any of the individual institutions named, since it is just a list of claims from anonymous sources. Sorry.

For the future, please keep all discussions about the article to the article's talk page, and don't bring them to the user talk pages of various editors - that just makes it harder to follow the discussion. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

What online sources die ? the text is a translated version of http://www.5u5.ru/articles/articles-soc/93-1med.html . And this published on newspaper . Alexson 97 (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You mentioned yourself that the newspaper link has stopped working (=died). Regardless, it cannot be used as a source for the reasons described above. I see you have been blocked, now. --bonadea contributions talk 07:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps

you could show up at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and put in a word about Nogales, Arizona or this stuff will go on all day? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Or better, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? Carptrash (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Carptrash: - I'm really sorry I disappeared just then. It looks like it is sorted at least temporarily, with the article protected against the valiant edito warrior. Thanks for reporting the IP. --bonadea contributions talk 18:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Yang Fenngang

Hello Bonadea,

Please watch also Draft:Fenggang Yang besides Templeton Foundation. I suspect that the involved users are trying (and will try) to self-promote and deliberately remove academically-backed criticism.--Amorphophallus Titanum (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Praneeth Rao Finial Edit

 Thanks

PraneAdword (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)Praneeth RaoPraneAdword (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Issue about your revert of the list of Hibiscus cultivars

Dear Bonadea Can you give me explanation how many of image allow in gallery ? and if i edit the list of hibiscus cultivars article to look like the list of mango cultivars is it ok ? .. Thank you --Trisorn Triboon (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Trisorn Triboon: thank you for your message. I don't know if there is a strict rule for the number of images, but my spontaneous reaction when seeing the many images on the list article was that it was excessive. In a list, it is common to have images of some of the entries in the right-hand margin, as List of Hibiscus cultivars does have - note also that each image is clearly identifiable as one of the entries in the list, as the explanatory text of the image tallies with the name of the cultivar in the list. In the gallery you added, I'm not sure if any of the images was identified as one of the list entries, and in addition the gallery was placed at the bottom of the page. As a result, it became a colourful but not helpful addition; I think the images are lovely, but images in a Wikipedia article have to have a purpose beyond that - each image should help the reader understand the subject better. It is possible to understand the variety that exists without adding 55 images to the article, and 55 images of unidentified hibiscus flowers don't really help the reader understand the subject better. I see that you have already uploaded your images to Wikimedia Commons, and that is where an image gallery such as this belongs. Does that make sense? --bonadea contributions talk 12:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

External links to at Therapy

External link of continua kids to Therapy page is not a spam link continua kids is a center that provide therapy for autistic kids — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejagla (talk • contribs) 07:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The reason we include references in Wikipedia articles is to give scholarly sources that verify the information in the article. Why did you think that the information "Among psychologists and other mental health professionals, including psychiatrists, psychiatric nurse practitioners, counselors, and clinical social workers, the term may refer specifically to psychotherapy" was verified by a commercial link to a physiotherapy centre in Gurgaon? It seems as if you were looking for a place to post the link, not a resource that would verify the information, and that's pretty much the definition of spamming Wikipedia, I'm afraid. The information about Wikipedia's external links policy was posted to your talk page well before you added the most recent external links, so you have had every opportunity to find out why those links would not be appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia, let alone in a reference for something unrelated. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Affordable Housing

I have already requested the page to be removed. Jigar d2018 (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Jigar Desai

Hi Jigar d2018, I think you misinterpreted my message on your talk page - it was not about the Anil Salvi page (which I haven't seen, and which was apparently deleted yesterday) but about a link you added to Affordable housing which did not support the information in the article. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The link was in reference to the Home Buying on Agreement in India. From a reader's perspective, essentially from India, that guide is must have. I think that would really help the User. I respect your decision of removing the link, but I consider it to be really great. I do understand that its biased towards India, but my area of expertise is in India and I can't really do anything about it, Sorry. I really don't want to appeal against the deletion. Jigar d2018 (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Jigar Desai

But the link was added to support information about a finance plan from 2008 in San Diego, California, and hence it did not help the reader at all! It does seem as if you scanned the article for the word "agreement" and added the link after that without checking the context.[1] That's not how references should be added to Wikipedia - we don't go around looking for a good place to add an external link, we find information that needs a reference that supports the info. In addition, please check WP:ELNO. dwello.in is a commercial company and as such should be used very sparingly as a reference. --bonadea contributions talk 12:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

" The Sebastian Rodriguez Show "

Hello why is it that we cannot make a page for " The Sebastian Rodriguez Show " ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor1808 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Sebastian. The article title The Sebastian Rodriguez Show was protected about a year ago after it had been created and recreated many times in spite of being clearly unsuitable for Wikipedia. Other articles were also vandalisd by being overwritten with text about you and/or your show - text that was at least in part clearly not true, e.g. here. List of most-listened-to radio programs had to be protected for a while last June because incorrect claims about your show were added to the list. Please don't use Wikipedia to try to promote yourself or your show; we all understand that you are passionate about it, but this is not the way to create a following. If and when a significant number of independent sources write in depth about your radio show, there can be an article about it - but it should be written by someone who has no connection to you at all. --bonadea contributions talk 17:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

BLT problem

I didn't intend to vandalise or get into edit wars with you, sorry! I was trying to help those articles and actually citing my sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bondboy9756 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bondboy9756: don't worry - I just wanted to make you aware of the fact that repeatedly reverting other editors' edits back to your own version can lead to trouble. You are not in trouble, I just didn't want it to get that far :-) --bonadea contributions talk 12:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Bondboy9756 (talk)