User talk:Bonadea/Archive 27

Navniet Sekera

Sir, I have added reliable Uttar Pradesh government (Uttar Pradesh Police official website ) source . You can check here. You can find all the information related to Sekera here. RELIABLE GOVERNMENT SOURCE. You can check !- https://uppolice.gov.in/en/officerprofile?transid=295&slugName=phq Arun singh Yaduvanshi (talk) 09:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. (This is a source for the birth date – it is not a source that shows notability for the person, just to be clear.) --bonadea contributions talk 09:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Sir, I have added complete and reliable source. He is a well-known police officer of Uttar Pradesh. I have added many sources to every section of his article. Please Review, Return to main article. Thank You .Arun singh Yaduvanshi (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I see that you have submitted it for review already. That will happen when it happens; I will not review it but I might make a couple of minor changes to it. In the meantime, please do not ask people to review your drafts, once you have submitted them to be reviewed. There's a group of volunteers who look at the articles that have the "Review waiting, please be patient" template, so once that template is there, there is no need to post more requests for review. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 09:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Sir, I have made some improvements. Would you like to give me some more suggestions? Thank You Arun singh Yaduvanshi (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

Swedish civility school
... you were recipient no. 2234 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Bonadea,

Someone keeps vandalizing the Crown Prince of Dubai's page about his divorce entry. It was reported that he married his cousin on May 15, 2019, The profile was updated last week with a divorce certificate dated -October 13, 2019. But I noticed the last person who edited the page has removed the divorce entry. I have confirmed he is divorced. Can you please review the page, block the last editor, and restore the divorce entry and then kindly protect its profile?

Who wrote that?

Hi, Bonadea, did you notice my mention of "Who wrote that?" at Talk:Horacio Gutiérrez? WikiBlame is so, hmm, old school. (Old and creaky.) Bishonen | tålk 11:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

Advice for newcomers

Hello,
You are receiving this message because you are invited to take part at Wikipedia:Advice for newcomers where you can provide advice that will help our newcomers in the future. It is not a discussion forum, just a place where you say what advice would be helpful to our future editors. I would like to get at least 100 editors to take part in this so please feel free to spread the word to other editors as well. I look forward to seeing what you say to newcomers. Interstellarity (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Cast vandalism

Did you got the notification? I had mentioned you here along with @Cyphoidbomb:. As Cyphoidbomb and you are familiar with Indian articles and actors, only you two can understand what's going on here, others may not necessarily get the picture that easily. 137.97.173.55 (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi guy, Thanks for your all efforts. SHISHIR DUA (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Breath: Into the Shadows

The entire plot should be in the episodes list, not in the synopsis. Look at other web series like Asur, they only spoil the plot in the episodes section not the synopsis section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.36.127 (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hedvig Sirenia

Hi, I saw you removed the prod tag I placed with the comment of she is notable. She only wrote in a local newspaper. Are there any books or anything she is known for as I could not find any and I feel only writing for a local paper and only being known locally as the article states does not make her notable. Can you help point me to English articles where she would meet notability please? Thanks Bakertheacre ^Chat/_{What I Baked} 19:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bakertheacre: thank you for your message. While you were posting the above I added more information and references to the article. I'm not sure where your claim that she only wrote for a local newspaper comes from; she was a frequent contributor to three of the literary publications in Gothenburg at the time, and as stated in the Wikipedia article, she was elected into the Royal Society of Science and Literature in Gothenburg, and she also translated plays and poems from French (and possibly other languages). I am not aware of any English-language publications that discuss her (when I find some I will add them to the article, if they seem useful) but as you are hopefully aware, that is not a requirement. --bonadea contributions talk 20:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

By the way, it's worth pointing out that various sources mention her by slightly different names: Hedvig Sirenius, Hedvig Sirenia, and her married name Hedvig Schulz, or Schultz, or Schulzen, or Schultzen... --bonadea contributions talk 20:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Bonadea, I got it from the article She was regularly published in the press in Gothenburg from 1760 onward and well known locally, where she was compared to Hedvig Charlotta Nordenflycht and called "The Sappho of Gothenburg" and "Our Sirén" (in reference to her name). It only mentions in passing of anything else. I do see you are updating the article so that works for me! Thanks Bakertheacre ^Chat/_{What I Baked} 20:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Since I don't give up easily

Bonadea's RfA

I asked you whether you'd be willing to run at RfA 15 months ago, and you'd said you'd consider it. There were seven other admins who hopped into the same discussion to agree with me. In response to your biggest concern, I think it's been a while since a truly qualified candidate was given a more-than-minimally-unfair time at RfA; and with your background, I rather suspect you'd have all the heavyweights jumping in to support you very soon. Are you willing to run? As before, I will gladly nominate you. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• +1 It would (almost) literally be another Cullen. AKA a piece of cake; a cakewalk. In fact, such a cakewalk will it be, that the only preparation you need to do will involve laying slices of cake down on the floor and marching up and down to a 1920s ragtime band. —— § erial 16:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Hey there, Bonadea, not to be a bother, etc...Vanamonde (Talk) 00:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello! 🙋

Actually for your kind information let me inform you that I'm a newbie here, joined today, just 45 mins or 1 hr ago. So I just want you to guide me how to fresh start Wikipedia ! Would you help me ? Cappuccino lover (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Location of K2

I was reading article on K2 which was last edited by you. There is no mention of it being lying in a disputed territory claimed both by India (as part of J&K)and Pakistan(as part of gilgit-baltistan) but controlled by Pakistan. Several other articles mention it being in their country best on their country of origin. Can the sensitivity of both the countries be respected and the location said to be in a disputed territory rather than inexplicably mention it to be lying in gilgit-baltistan. Hope you will give thought on neutrality of the issue Arkit.joy (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Responding to claims that i am a paid editor

Good day please sometime in June you ask me to clarify if i am a paid editor, honestly I'm not. I really love to create and edit pages, yes i might have made a lot of mistakes but honestly i do this for the passion, please believe me and i also don't want my account to be blocked please. You can keep an eye on me on that note. Please do respond thanks Thecapitalking (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Heaven

I've made arrangements: there will be a special place in heaven for you for this cleanup. Okay, I have no actual pull, but thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Well said Cyphoidbomb!! An excellent example of how just how valuable B is to the 'pedia. I wish I could treble your pay but that means it would be exactly the same as it is now :-) Thank you for all your work B and have a pleasant week. MarnetteD|Talk 22:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

July

pale globe-thistle above the Rhine

... with thanks for that and other beneficial things! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 40

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020

• New partnerships
  • Al Manhal
  • Ancestry
  • RILM
• #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
• AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 40

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020

• New partnerships
  • Al Manhal
  • Ancestry
  • RILM
• #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
• AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC) You are a very nice person...thank you...An Original Leg (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Harassment

How am i harassing people by answering their question? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pahlevun#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion Baratiiman (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Yes and they better give an answer or im going to admin chat." – this was, what, the fifth completely inappropriate report you filed against the same user, and now you imply that you will file yet another one? That is indeed harassment. --bonadea contributions talk 14:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• He wants consensus and you are not helpingBaratiiman (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bonadea Harassing people with prejudices is against Wikipedia's Policy. Moreover continuing to do so will lead to You being Banned from Wikipedia. Saifullah.vguj (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The Spies Who Loved Me

This article has many problems and is not complete, so it should be in drafts thanks (Thepesar (talk) 08:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)).

But it is nowhere near being a candidate for speedy deletion, and yet you tagged it twice as having no context – which is clearly incorrect. No Wikipedia article is complete, by definition. I frequently move articles to draft space so I am not against doing that on principle, but I disagree that this particular article (The Spies Who Loved Me) looks like it would belong in draft space. It is far from perfect, but I just don't see any problems of that magnitude. If I am wrong, feel free to request that it be moved to draft space, but please be specific about what the issues are. --bonadea contributions talk 08:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

If you believe this article correctly, then I trust you too thanks (Thepesar (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC))

Isma'il ibn Isa ibn Musa al-Hashimi

I'm sorry, but check this text added in this article has no source (Thepesar (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)).

First of all, almost every piece of information in the infobox you removed was in fact sourced, even though there was no reference marker in the infobox itself. Secondly, you tagged the article for speedy deletion as obvious vandalism/hoax. Why did you do that – what was the rationale for tagging an article with five different scholarly sources as "pure vandalism"? If you are very familiar with the subject area and have good reason to believe that the sources don't really exist or that they have been completely misrepresented, feel free to take the article to AfD – but do not do so without an actual policy based reason. This happened only an hour or two after you were warned not to add inappropriate speedy deletion tags to articles. Even if you edit in good faith, this kind of thing is really disruptive. --bonadea contributions talk 10:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

CIRN

If only there was a WP:CIR noticeboard. It's unfortunate that someone wasn't able to nip the problem in the bud; part of me thinks the Isfahan should be rolled back to the previous version, as it's going to take a lot of work to salvage the current version. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes to all the above. :/ I think half the "culture and demographics" section could be combined into one Architecture subsection, only it also needs to be converted from a list to prose. And all the trivia needs to be cleaned out. And all the references tidied up. And read and understood. Sisyphus only had to roll a rock... --bonadea contributions talk 20:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

self reflecting consensus

you said in your edit summary "No consensus" but before your revert there was no consensus for either, before your revert and the edit summary of "no consensus" it was 50-50(1 user against 1 user, now its 100-50 with your revert (2 users against 1 user) so YOU have created no consensus while before there was no consensus for either Gooduserdude (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

There was no consensus for the inclusion. You added new content which was contested, and the version to keep until a consensus is reached is the version without the new contested content. YOU have created no consensus while before there was no consensus for either makes no sense. Please read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD and stop edit warring. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 08:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

edit warring?, so its ok for the very same user to revert back 6 times if he dont agree then? i mean if someone else reverted me at the second time also that would have been diffrent, but as it looks now am not the only one edit warring here, am i? Gooduserdude (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

also see my reply on Talk:Greater Germanic Reich now am starting to agree with you with certain conditions (see the talkpage) Gooduserdude (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You have been given multiple links to relevant policies. Read them and reflect on how they apply to you, not only to other people. If you have suggestions for edits on other articles, use those article talk pages to discuss those proposed edits. agree with you with certain conditions makes no sense. --bonadea contributions talk 08:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

ok i will, but that still does not mean the policies does not apply to others either Gooduserdude (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

and if i make a WP:BOLD edit on those articles will you revert me?, i will ofcourse start an discussion(without edit warring) is someone revert me, but i hope atleast we agree on the subject Gooduserdude (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Discuss first. Take your suggestion to the article talk pages. Wait for editors who are familiar with those articles to comment. Only use the article in question as an example, not other articles. --bonadea contributions talk 08:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

no read WP:BOLD, do you yourself discuss everthing before making a edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bonadea nope you dont so why should i Gooduserdude (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

also per WP:BOLD one makes an edit then someone reverts it then they start a discussion at the talkpage Gooduserdude (talk) 09:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

BRD also says "Don't be bold with potentially controversial changes". But BRD is neither a policy nor a guideline, more of an advice page based on generally accepted practice. Thank you for agreeing not to edit war in future. --bonadea contributions talk 11:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

october 2020

While talking about some edit that goes against your ideology you are seen to be threatening people. Please see npov guidelines guidelines while editing. Also it should be noted that revertin edits that are true but you dont agree with is not part of wikipedia policy. Hope it helps Saifullah.vguj (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be thinking about some other chaps. Better luck next time! --bonadea contributions talk 18:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

October harvest

October

music today, - enchanting, said a critic about the Mendelssohn that I heard on 3 October, - this video is older, and the YT in the article comes with a Bach encore as she played for us. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

16 October memories --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Ric Edelman COI edit request

Hi! Reaching out because I saw you've been involved in updating Ric Edelman in the past. I've posted some COI edit requests on the talk page there – if you have time, would love your feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 13:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Bonadea, Can please help create a wiki page for the organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisaconnick (talk • contribs) 06:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I need help to create a page but my account doesn't allow me to do so.

Hey Bonadea,

I am trying to create a wiki page for a nonprofit but my account is allowing me to do so. Kindly help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisaconnick (talk • contribs) 06:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for taking a neutral approach and solving the problem. You make Wikipedia a better place. I'm new here, I don't know many things, thank you again.🙏👍 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaxoul (talk • contribs) 13:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thank you for informing me of my huge mistake. I present you with this barnstar. Firestar464 (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Disrupting Wikipedia with resubmission without corrections.

Respected sir Thank you very much for your warning telling me not resubmit the article without addressing the issue pointed out by the previous reviewer. Actually I had posted a message on the page itself in order to ensure the reviewer understands the tricky situation I was in with respect to resolving the issue but someone deleted it.

Please go through my coversation below with the previous reviewer and you will understand why I was in no position to fix the problem.

[removing copy of the section "POV Forks" here]

How can I fix the reason for decline when the page was declined vindictively and arbitrarily after removing a discussion posted in the group with respect to its merger that had been opened in morning only and in which only the reviewer had given his opinion so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhumi2tandon (talk • contribs) 00:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bhumi2tandon: Several points:

• As I mentioned previously, there are multiple issues, not only the POV fork issue mentioned by Seraphimblade. The most flagrant thing about your resubmission is that the sourcing is very inadequate, and that was pointed out in the first decline. A small fraction of the content is sourced, and unfortunately several of the sources in there don't actually support the content.
• Messages to the reviewers have no place in a draft.
• It is absolutely not appropriate to say that "the page was declined vindictively and arbitrarily" – that is assuming bad faith on the part of the reviewer. As you have seen, multiple experienced editors agree that it is a POV fork so the decline was clearly not arbitrary, and where does the vindictiveness come in?
• after removing a discussion posted in the group with respect to its merger that had been opened in morning only and in which only the reviewer had given his opinion so far Where did the reviewer remove a merger discussion? The merger discussion at Talk:Adam's Bridge is still ongoing, and has not been removed at any point.
• I had already read your discussion on Seraphimblade's talk page, and it is almost never a good idea to copy a discussion from one talk page to another talk page (so I removed it from your post above, replacing it with a link to the discussion). When you copy a complete discussion including another person's posts, as well as signatures and time stamps, that other person has no way of knowing that their words are being posted (with their signature!) on an unrelated page.
• What you posted above was exactly the same text that you posted on the draft and at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Please don't post the same message to multiple places, and please make it a priority to remove the copied conversation you included in the Help desk message, as well as to amend your wording there to remove all accusations of bad faith – those will not help you.
• You ignored the warning I gave you for disruptive editing and resubmitted the draft yet again. I see that it has now been rejected rather than just declined. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 10:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

About the "vindictively" claim – that puzzled me quite a bit, but it looks like it was based on your misremembering the order of events. The decline happened first (at the same time as you got the notification about it on your talk page) and after that you started the discussion on Seraphimblade's talk page. So it would not have been possible for the decline to be caused by anything you said in the discussion. --bonadea contributions talk 13:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Made mistake hindi is not official langauge of puducherry except as whole india

Try to understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkkraj (talk • contribs) 16:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I know that – it's pretty much what I wrote on your user talk page, actually. But what you need to understand is that if somebody reverts your edits, even if you are correct, you should stop and discuss with them, and explain your edits... and when several different people revert your edits you must not edit war (unless it's a question of blatant vandalism, like adding ). Edit warring is not OK even if you are right, and it can actually get you blocked. One problem with your edits is that you have not been using edit summaries, so it is very hard for other editors to understand what you are doing. Another problem is that some of your edits removed parts of the URLs of sources, and that's not constructive. I have restored those. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 16:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Even you can go through portals, there is, hindi is not additional official langauge of puducherry except Tamil and english

https://puducherry-dt.gov.in/ Kkkraj (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Karikku (web series)

On my second attempt after the article was declined yesterday, I have provided notable sources like The Hindu, The Indian Express etc..., . I believe that the subject is relevant, as it has received a high amount of popularity even after belonging to the Malayalam language, which is a scheduled language in India. Even a film was released by grouping the series, which was released on Youtube. But is it justified to just deny the article, because it was nominated for deletion in the past. I request you to review my article as you are an admin. --Atlantis77177 (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not an admin, and you need to stop posting to user talk pages and asking people to review the draft. --bonadea contributions talk 06:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Bedriczwaleta/IBM PLEX SANS Long-term abuse

Hi! First time talking to you here.

Do you know this user named Khalid Al-Salom? If you tell me who this user was before this day, I also don't know who is this person. But, with some research, I want to say that the user you are interacting with is a LTA [redacted]. I'm sorry to say this to you, but I want to let you know that LTA has sent death threats to me. SMB99thx my edits 04:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@SMB99thx: if a LTA troll makes that kind of threat, you need to let emergency@wikimedia.org know – I see that you created a LTA page for the user where you mention that, though, so hopefully you have already done that. Secondly, please do not post information on-wiki that can connect a user to an off-wiki identity – I am pretty sure that violates WP:OUTING (I may interpret that too strictly – still, it is better to err on the side of caution.) Since the account you mention here is already blocked, and has been since March, there is nothing more to do there. I'm sorry to hear you received such threats – please do report it to the emergency contact and maybe also to an admin, if there's other blocking that needs to be done. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 11:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I already contacted emergency@wikimedia.org twice and they said that they can't do anything about it, because that death threat involves off-wiki. SMB99thx my edits 11:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

dear sir

dear sir .

where I am, you might also have the beginning in wikipedia sir . I am fully aware that wikipedia is against paid articles .

Sir you pointed me of taking money .

Let me tell you pointed me for adding a name of an actor kritn ajitesh ,sir kritn ajitesh is an actor who has worked in many regional films and Bollywood films to, and he is a singer also ,who has released many singles ,you can check that too .

Yes I am his fan ,and so do many people are ,you know why this man come from a very small town with his hard work and passion he came this far ,but due to not having background he is facing nepotism ,manybig people contacts has made his page deleted ,or taken his films ,he had tell in his interview.

So sir instead of blaming ,you should help me in creating pages ,because wikipedia is for a knowledge base . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjanvii (talk • contribs) 09:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

I want to thank you for removing of that line "ballads sing Ahir bravery in mediaeval period" but this same line is in Banaphar, so please remove it from there as well. Sumit banaphar (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, it appears to be more relevant in that article, if you read what the source says. --bonadea contributions talk 13:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry!

I am sincerely apologetic for my inadmissible editing; I should not have done it. [[1]]. Kindly see the matter. I will not repeat this. Warm regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible and acceptable to replace an existing article?

Thank you for responding to my question. I think there may be a misunderstanding here - probably because I have difficulties understanding the technical terms used. Anyhow, just to clarify: I am not the subject of the planned article, I do not represent or work for the subject of that article. I shall receive no financial or any other benefit from contributing that planned article either.

In reality, I am a social science (not Literature) ex-academic with years of retirement behind me. I just appreciate helping artists such as poets, painters and musicians, simply because I think they deserve this. No other gain has ever been included. Is there a conflict of interests in this? If so, please let me know. In case this helps, here are more details: The subject of the article is the Israeli poet Tuvia Ruebner. Yes, I have known him and his wife for some years. This is why I felt able to ask for information form his widow. After he died, I just checked, for myself only, what had Wikipedia written about him. I found out that an article was published about him - probably soon after he died in July 2019. That article is a nice gesture. I then compared it to articles written for other Israeli poets of the same standing - that is, ones who also received the Israel Prize for Poetry - for example: Amichai and Zach. I must say that when so compared the existing 'Tuvia Ruebner' article seems to me closer to being a nice introduction rather than a full Wikipedia article. Indeed, someone already added to it a line saying that the 'Tuvia Ruebner' article needs to be expanded. That is what I would like to do - to expand that article.

I now have a draft article ready. It is within the permitted length, and follows roughly the format adopted for the article on Yehuda Amichai. Yes, at my request, I have received factual information, which I thought was needed, from his widow. I also consulted the translator of his poems to English about further facts which, as expected, I did not have. At my request, a photographic portrait of Prof Ruebner was offered to me, free of charge, by its creator who confirmed he knew that it could be used by anyone once it is included in that planned article. He wrote to me that he felt 'honored' to do that. All three sources know very well that, like me, they will not be identified, credited or paid for their contributions, and that what I write may be changed by others without consulting any of us.

Please let me know whether the above is an appropriate basis for writing the planned article.

Thank you for your help.

Merchav1 (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Merchav1: and thank you for your message. The reason I (incorrectly) thought that you had a professional connection to the subject was that you mentioned in your first post to the Teahouse that you'd offer to pay somebody to write an article, but since you don't have any such connection, this does not apply to you. In one sense you could be said to have a conflict of interest, but wanting to improve Wikipedia articles about people we like and admire is only problematic if we put our own personal liking and admiration above the interests of writing a neutral encyclopedia entry. Many people do a very good job of writing neutral and encyclopedic articles about topics they have a personal interest in, and there's no reason to assume it would be any different for you. In fact, since this is a hobby for all of us it would be unreasonable to demand that people don't write about topics they are enthusiastic about!

However, I'm afraid you will not be able to use information that you have personally received and that is not published by reliable independent sources. The key policy here is verifiability – Wikipedia readers should not have to trust that the Wikipedia article is correct, but should at least in theory be able to consult the sources that the information comes from. ("In theory", because many sources that are perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia's purposes are not available online – but independent sources do have to exist.) Another issue is the fact that writing a Wikipedia article is not exactly like writing other types of text, and it can take a while to get into the style and learn the conventions of writing here. Replacing an existing article with text that's been written in its entirety by people who have no experience of editing Wikipedia is almost never a good idea. My suggestion is for you to read some articles about authors among Wikipedia's list of "Good articles" – that's a designation given to articles after they have gone through a fairly rigorous peer review. You shouldn't feel that your efforts have to come up to that standard, or that the article needs to be as long or detailed as those are, but I think it's always helpful to have good model texts to look at. Quite frankly, Wikipedia contains a lot of articles that are not all that good, and are not useful to take as models! If you also start by editing other articles, you will probably find it easier to understand how policies like neutral point of view apply. I don't have the time tonight to look at the article you mentioned, but I hope that is at least somewhat helpful. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 20:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

N.Ravikiran

I have only removed content that has no connection to his music or the Musician himself.There are enough citations from reliable sources which are from bonafide sources.Please help improve the article if you can Sir Rajeshbm (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

No, you removed well-sourced content about the person. The article is about the person, not mainly about his music. --bonadea contributions talk 12:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC

The content ay be well-sourced but wikipedia is about fact and factual content of the nature removed either goes to law enforcementor to the courts if an investigations are ordered.Allegations,Insinuations and Counter-Allegations should not find place in a wikipedia articleRajeshbm (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Also Aleegations of misconduct are mere allegations-If they were true and factual they should have been probed by law enforcement,investigated and reached the courts of law.Aleegations and Denial both fall under the "Oxymoron" category and cannot be deemed as factual however well-sourced. Wikipedia is a space for fact not spice.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshbm (talk • contribs) 02:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The relevant policy here is verifiability. (I removed the part you had added to your previous post after I responded to it, and added it just above – none of your words has been removed, only moved into chronological order so the discussion is represented correctly.) Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 10:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you help refine it please so that it does not read as an advertisement please Rajeshbm (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC) (I moved this post to the bottom of the section, where it belongs chronologically. Rajeshbm, please always post at the bottom of discussion threads, not the top. I have given you a few tips about promotional language on your own page. Bishonen | tålk 17:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC).)

Why don't you please help me or someone make the right corrections.You seem to be an expert and I do not mean harm.Why send me warnings,threats,intimidations instead of either helping or passing it on?Rajeshbm (talk) 13:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I have been working on the article, so I'm not sure what you refer to. As I pointed out on your user talk page, it is not a matter of minor "corrections" but of a thorough revision. As for "passing it on" – that implies that there is such as thing as a main responsibility for an article which can be passed on, which is not the case. One common way we signal to other volunteers that an article needs to be revised is through maintenance templates, which is why you should stop removing that template. --bonadea contributions talk 13:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Naturopathy

Hi Bonadea, Wehay, back on wiki after been censored by the masses! Anyhow, joking aside, I'd like to seek your expert advice:

Problem Statement: The Naturopath encyclopaedia summary is extremely vague, and doesn't leave readers with any idea as to what Naturopathy is.

I understand that there is a lot of negative press generated on the subject, and in the interest of a balanced article, it's fair to leave that in there, however for the article to be encyclopaedia worthy it should at least start with a description of what Naturopathy is.

Here are a few suggestions: Google: a system of alternative medicine based on the theory that diseases can be successfully treated or prevented without the use of drugs, by techniques such as control of diet, exercise, and massage.

merriam-webster: a system of treatment of disease that avoids drugs and surgery and emphasizes the use of natural agents (such as air, water, and herbs) and physical means (such as tissue manipulation and electrotherapy)

dictionary.com: a system or method of treating disease that employs no surgery or synthetic drugs but uses special diets, herbs, vitamins, massage, etc., to assist the natural healing processes.

cambridge dictionary: a system of treating diseases using natural methods such as controlling what a person eats, exercise, and treatments such as homeopathy and acupuncture

In my opinion, all of these definitions would add value to the summary in helping people with no background to understand the subject matter.

Since you're clearly concerned with dedicating time to maintaining wiki to the highest possible standard, I'm asking you whether you agree that the summary is unclear, in need of improvement, and whether you have any recommendations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmjowett (talk • contribs) 11:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

But the article does start with a definition, which is perfectly neutral as well as factual. Wikipedia articles should generally not open with a dictionary definition. In any case, Talk:Naturopathy is where you need to make suggestions, not a user talk page. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 21:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bonadea, I respectfully disagree with you. The first sentence in this article is confusing, and to quote you ""Natural diet" doesn't mean anything", so I find it surprising that you would be happy for "natural" to be used as part of the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmjowett (talk • contribs) 10:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not about the word but about how it is used. The current introductory sentence says that naturopathy uses "practices branded as "natural"" (in other words, "natural" is the word that natoropathy practitioners use about their practices), and your proposed writing included the phrase "promoting a natural diet" (where Wikipedia would use the phrase "natural diet" in its own voice.) "Natural diet" really does not mean anything – or rather, it could mean just about anything, such as eating only vegetables you've grown yourself, or eating only food without artificially added substances, or eating only things you like, or eating only things that occur in nature with no modification such as cooking, or... In addition, the secondary sources we have do not support this, and finally, that use of "natural" sounds like it might be intended to promote the practice, or present it as basically positive, and Wikipedia needs to keep a neutral and evidence-based stance here. --bonadea contributions talk 14:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 41

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 41, September – October 2020

• New partnership: Taxmann
• WikiCite
• 1Lib1Ref 2021

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit reverted

I had read the content but I didn't even know heiress was a word which is why I corrected it to heirs instead of heiress. Thank you for telling me that it was a word thought.

Warning?

I thought that notice was only about high profile people, like Biden. You mean only one edit even for minor articles? I see others make multiple edits all the time on the same dayVanny089 (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

No, the discretionary sanctions notice you received was not an "one-revert" warning. There is a page-specific restriction at Joe Biden which does not apply to most other articles, but WP:BLP applies to all articles about living people. --bonadea contributions talk 14:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I deeply apologize

@Bonadea:. I apologize for my mistakes and promise to never repeat them again. I thought for GA nomination, a person who is not related to the article must nominate it. I am sorry. I thought I reverted my edit in the Martial Arts section. Didn't I?. Well, I accept my mistakes and thank you for informing me about them.--Assassin77177 (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

In the matter of the signature, could you tell me how to change the colour from normal colour to sky blue( a colour that I prefer). Once again Thank you.--Assassin77177 (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know the colour codes to use – your signature looks blue to me, though maybe not sky blue. Might Help:Link color or Help:Using colours work? --bonadea contributions talk 12:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bonadea: I viewed the article Hinduism, and found that it was once a WP:FA. I made a few edits to it in 'Modern India'. I wished to know if I could nominate it for WP:GA. I request you to respond.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 11:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Atlantis77177: I'm sorry, I have not contributed to that article. Go to Talk:Hinduism and start the discussion there. The reason there is a requirement that a person who nominates should have contributed is that the nominator should know the article very well in order to evaluate whether it reaches GA standards. I see that you have made an edit to the article, but that only consisted of adding an unsourced statement (which is something that would in fact bring the article further away from GA status), and it doesn't necessarily make you very familiar with the article. You would also have to be familiar with the reasons why it was delisted back in 2008. I'm sure it has improved a lot since then, but does it look, realistically, like the GA requirements are currently met? If so, make the case for a GA nomination on the article talk page and see what the editors who have been working on it think. Don't nominate it unless there is a consensus in favour of doing so. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

So kind

Hi I don't have much time but you said to me to put sources which helped alot in NIZAR ABDULLAH ALSUFI's draft i just came by to say thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Host 9099087 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate Warning

Please remove the inappropriate warning you have assigned. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abramsartistsnyc (talk • contribs) 16:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not aware of having placed any inappropriate warnings. Unfortunately, you have made repeated inappropriate edits, however – information about that on your talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 17:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Horsebeating

[2] Incase you're interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• sob* Thanks, Gråberg. Good response, let's see if it sinks in. --bonadea contributions talk 20:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Could be worse: [3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Nope, it did not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

So I see. Sigh. One can but try. It's not that I can't also be provoked by things that are written in Wikipedia, and I certainly have my own biases just like anybody else, it's just that this particular conviction is so very hard to understand. I just don't get how the possible ancestry of a historical person, or a mythical figure (nor a modern-day person for that matter) can be so important. --bonadea contributions talk 20:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's something like a matter of principle, similar to Liancourt Rocks or Adam's Bridge. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hinduism

@Bonadea:As you had told prior to my most recent GA nomination, I made some edits to Hinduism, before nominating for WP:GA. I also asked many editors, of which only one's response you have seen. I wish to tell you that I asked 2 more people, 1 stated that he was the person to ask. The second told me that it was my choice. So I moved on with the idea. Please respond if I have made any unnoticed error in the process of nomination.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

To be frank, it looks like you apparently did not read, or did not understand, the advice you have been given already. You have not been involved in editing the article (three small and rather superficial edits made within a few hours of each other, and all of them reverted for different reasons, is not the same thing as "being involved in the article"). Let me repeat what I said above: The reason there is a requirement that a person who nominates should have contributed is that the nominator should know the article very well in order to evaluate whether it reaches GA standards. You also have not started a discussion on the article's talk page where you explain why you believe that the article currently meets the GA requirements. When you have asked individual editors to nominate the artice for GA the only reason I have seen you give is that it used to be a FA, but you have not addressed the questions about why you think the previous delisting and earlier failures to meet GA criteria are no longer an issue. You need to do so on the article's talk page.

As for I also asked many editors, of which only one's response you have seen. well, I quoted two different editors on your user talk page. I have seen two or three of other places where you have asked individual editors to nominate the article for GA (including me), but those two are the ones who have actually given their opinion on whether the article is in any shape to be nominated, as far as I have seen. Well, I did so, too, and you might want to read that response again (and follow the links and read the information – people don't link to information pages for no reson!) Granted, I haven't been reading through your every edit, but that's really not the point. The point is that you have been given specific detailed information about why the article is not a suitable candidate for GA and why editors who have not been heavily involved in editing the article should not nominate it. Instead of responding to that, you went ahead and nominated it anyway. And when the nomination was reverted (with additional detailed information) your post here does not show that you really understood any of that information. Or maybe you simply chose not to read it, I don't know. But in any case, your editing is starting to become disruptive. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 14:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bonadea: I apologize if I sounded rude, because I didn't mean to be. Maybe you're right. I'm a little over-eccentric. So, let's face it, I accept your suggestions that I should just concentrating on editing and creating articles now, and then gradually move on to these - Behind the curtain works.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)--Atlantis77177 (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I also request you to view some of my articles. Many editors have advised me to improve my style of writing, but they don't go for much explanation. Could you tell me the problem with my writing style, and the corrections needed.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

VANI BHOJAN

Hi sir, kindly See this [[4]] and this [[5]] Riya Iyer S Menon only hating Vani Bhojan. In these edit, Meeku Maathrame Cheptha movie Vani Bhojan in the female lead but Riya Iyer S Menon edit she is a supporting role. That only I reverted. ThanksEswnav (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Eswnav: If you disagree with another editor about article content, you must not keep reverting back to your preferred version. You will be blocked for edit warring if you do it again (in fact, you still might be blocked since you reverted more than once after the warning you received on your user talk page.) If you have reliable independent sources supporting the information you want to add, present them on the article talk page, and discuss with other editors – don't say "this is correct and you must not change it", that is not discussing the issues. Secondly, you must not talk about other editors in that way. Feel free to post an apology to the other editor for speculating about their opinions or motives (which you can't know anything about.) If you say that kind of thing about other editors again, you might be blocked for that as well. --bonadea contributions talk 11:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bonadea: ; Again User:Eswnav started re-editing page Vani Bhojan.Please check the history of that page.You have warned once.I kindly request you, either block Eswnav from that page (Vani Bhojan) or from the wikipedia edits.He keeps the same mentality of a Mad Fan even warned several times.Also he's in a hurry making another article related to her (Draft:Triples (web series)).Please make immediate measures inorder to stop his mad behaviour of a fan to her.

Riya Iyer S Menon (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Riya Iyer S Menon, what to you want ? I created article in draft. If I doing wrong edit in Vani Bhojan article kindly inform to me. Thanks Eswnav (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Riya Iyer S Menon: and @Eswnav:, please discuss the article(s) on the relevant article talk pages, not here – and "discuss" does not mean posting "the article is correct, do not edit" or anything like that. Furthermore, Riya Iyer S Menon, please do not attack other editors; I try my best to remove promotional content, exaggerations and other inappropriate content posted by enthusiastic fans (or paid marketing people) so I probably agree with you about the content, but it is absolutely inappropriate to refer to other editors in that way. Note that I am not an administrator, nor have I ever been one, so I cannot block anybody or protect the article. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 22:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: ;User:Eswnav is still after page Vani Bhojan, started re-editing page Vani Bhojan.Please check the history of that page.already warned.I kindly request you, either block Eswnav from that page (Vani Bhojan) or from the wikipedia edits.He keeps the same mentality of a Mad Fan even warned several times.Also he's in a hurry making another article related to her (Draft:Triples (web series)).Please make immediate measures inorder to stop his mad behaviour of a fan to her.Actually I mentioned this to bonadea.He removed the unwanted contents and made it perfect.Even after that Eswnav made editing to that page again.Please do consider my request please.Either block Eswnav from that page (Vani Bhojan) or from the wikipedia edits.It's my humble words.He keeps doing the same even we warn him everytime.

Riya Iyer S Menon (talk) 07:19, 02 December 2020 (UTC)

@Riya Iyer S Menon: I don't know what problems you are talking about, because you repeatedly fail to tell me what the problems are. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, when I start looking for problems, why do I find that you, Riya, are creating problems, like here where you delete normal formatting, apparently with no knowledge of what those things are? That's indistinguishable from vandalism. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: ;Is IMDb a relaible source? Sorry i removed it ,if it is so and what problems i were talking about,is that User:Eswnav is still after page Vani Bhojan.He again started re-editing page Vani Bhojan for minute things and making new articles mainly for highlighting Vani Bhojan.Got it???????Draft:Triples (web series), & Draft:Galatta Nakshatra Awards are better examples for his attempts.so he can fluff up the Vani Bhojan article. See his attempts to highlight her and where ever she is related to her????????He even tried to make highlight her over veteran actresses by using her images in many articles..such as List of Indian television actresses & Sun Kudumbam Viruthugal for Best Actress, also used more than multiples images in her short span of career(Even famous & veteran artist's /heroine's page doesn't have that much images.Looking back to his history of Editing he's mainly and only foccusing to Vani Bhojan.If this is allowed he will make disruptive edits which may result in vandalism, for the page Vani Bhojan.Please do consider my request, please block Eswnav from that page (Vani Bhojan) edits.It's my humble words.

Riya Iyer S Menon (talk) 05:46, 03 December 2020 (UTC)

The Mummy (1999 film)

@Bonadea: I spotted that Rick O'Connell redirects to Mummy Franchise characters. But, he is the lead protagonist in all 3 movies of the series. So shouldn't there be an additional article. I myself have created such articles like Dr Smolder Bravestone, which was reviewed and accepted. But the Jack Dawson article was deleted. Also, Imhotep (The Mummy) is an article on the lead antagonist of the series. While Imhotep is in 3 movies and 1 Tv show, Rick is in 3 movies. As I have presented my view, please comment as you are an experienced editor. Thank you.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Please respond.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Alright, maybe I am disturbing you a lot. I'll take this to WP:TH. You answer if you see it there or you can answer it here. Thank You.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 05:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Undo

I wished to inform you that I have reverted your edit in Dr. Smolder Bravestone. Please don't take me in the wrong sense. I saw the expanation you gave, when you cleaned up the plot. I have sourced both the plots with a total of 5 references. I request you to visit the article and do as required. Thank you.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. None of the sources meets WP:RS, I'm afraid; neither IMDb nor fandom.com can be used as sources in Wikipedia, so please remove those from the references. I also don't think that the movie plots are relevant for the article – if there are reliable sources discussing the character's actions and functions in the movie, such discussions can be included, but these long plot descriptions are not about the character, they summarise the films and so they really don't belong in my view.

There's no reason why you should take my opinion as gospel, of course. Rather, I'd advise you to continue the discussion you started at WT:FCHAR. I'm not sure if you felt that the plot summaries added a claim of notability for the character, but that's not the case. To show notability, again what you need is multiple reliable secondary sources discussing the character in some kind of depth. At the moment, there isn't really any such sources, since all the secondary sources are film reviews discussing the movie plot and all the characters. If you do discuss this article at WT:FCHAR, don't forget to mention that you created some other articles about characters from the same films as well – the discussion should include them all since they all have similar issues. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 22:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your advice, please visit WT:FCHAR to discuss on the topic.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	I do not get paid to write. I contribute because I want to and I am still learning the platform. I hope this answers your question. Jezmiah (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

User talk:LoganBlade

Hi there Bonadea, I hope you are well. I removed the text from Loganblade's talk page because it was a malformed attempt at requesting speedy deletion. I wont do it again, and I'm sorry if my actions violated policy. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Destroyeraa: it's good to see you back again! Sorry if I came over as heavy-handed there, but in this particular case, Loganblade had posted a working CSD template. An admin disabled the CSD by removing one set of curly brackets, and posted a comment below it. It's usually a good idea to avoid editing other users' user talk pages (though there are exceptions – I am always grateful to my lovely band of talk page stalkers when they remove various personal attacks from here!) and if you want to do so, it's good to check the edit history to see what actually happened on the page. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 20:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, gotcha. Thanks for the welcome-back! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Khan (surname)

Hi there bonadea,the reason for the deletion of the sub article of Khan (surname) is invalid moreover there are no evidences that the place named in the sub article are not on person who are not Khan (surname). If you have such evidences add them in reference or else you will banned i.e. WP:BAN for doing disruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.113.35.194 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor – first of all, please make sure that you log in to your account when editing Wikipedia. Secondly, a disambiguation about a surname contains links to people with that surname, not to places that happen to have the same name. Thirdly, when content is contested and removed (as it has been by me and another editor), the WP:ONUS is on the editor who proposes to add the content to show why it is relevant – not on the editors who contest it to find references proving a negative. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 10:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you simply create List of places named Khan as Coastside suggested? Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 10:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The reason for removing sub article Place from the article is still not clear. Please clear the detail and reply to this. Or else your edits will be considered a Vandalism attempt. Saifullah.vguj (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Saifullah.vguj: Thank you for your message. I have removed the extra heading to keep the discussion about this topic together.

A surname is the name of a person, so it does not make sense to me to include links to articles about places on a disambiguation page for a surname. A place name is not a surname. As Coastside suggested here, if a place is verifiably named after a person who is listed on the page, it might be possible to add that specific place as a sub-bullet directly below the link to the article about the person; some of the articles linked from the "Places" sub-section in this version of the article are about places named after a person (as seen in the article), but most of them have no information about that being the case.

There is a practical consideration as well: since Khan is one of the most common surnames in the world, the disambiguation page with articles about people by that surname could become incredibly long if there were articles about all notable people called Khan. Adding a whole separate section, listing articles that are not about the surname, does not seem helpful to Wikipedia's readers – they won't look for place names on a surname article, and when a page gets too long, it can create practical and technical problems for readers and editors. What is helpful is having a section about the places at Khan, and it would also make sense to me to create a list article or disambiguation page for the places, which was also suggested by Coastside (pinging Coastside to alert him to me taking his name in vain :-) )

In what way was my edit here vandalism? (Please have a look at WP:VAND to refresh your memory about what vandalism is, and what it is not.) --bonadea contributions talk 10:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bonadea: I agree with you, and you apparently agree with me. We're good. I can't add much to what you said, other than to say it might be helpful to request input from other editors. I anticipate that there is enough established consensus about how to handle these issues that there won't be much debate.Coastside (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Agree with you and Coastside about the detail of the subsection but I am not clear to how to create an article named List of places named Khan. Please require some Help.

My article was removed

I recently found that some of my articles on the Jumanji Characters have been redirected to the movies. All these articles have been reviewed twice and yet were left as they were. So is there anything I can do, or should I create a particular page for all characters.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

If you wonder why the articles were redirected, the best person to ask is the editor who created the redirects. However, keep in mind that several people had already expressed their doubts about whether these movie characters are notable enough for a standalone article. I'm not sure what you mean by "reviewed twice", and I can't say whether a separate page about the characters would be a good idea – maybe bring it up at WT:FCHAR where you've had people respond to your questions in the past?

I notice that you reverted a redirect of another article you had created, Champagne Problems (Taylor Swift song) ; the redirect has been reinstated, and instead of edit warring over it you need to start a discussion and show how the song is independently notable. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 23:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I have a doubt

@Bonadea: You told me that fictional characters don't require the film plot. Please view Brian O'Conner. I just wanted to inform you, just in case you had missed ot. I'm just trying to help.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, @Atlantis77177:, and thanks for your message. I'm afraid I will have to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here. If you think that the Appearances section in that article is too substantial, the place to bring it up is the article's talk page or at the FCHAR talk page. As you are perhaps aware, Appearances is one of the recommended sections per Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters/Style guide, but that doesn't mean an Appearances section should contain lots of plot details that are not directly relevant to that character. I would probably agree with you that the Brian O'Conner article has too much plot detail, but I don't really have the time nor the inclination right now to read up on a movie character I have never heard of before. (By the way, when you post to another editor's talk page they are always notified, so you don't actually need to ping them. It doesn't matter that you do ping me on this page, I mean, I don't get an extra notification so it's not annoying or anything, but I wanted to let you know that you don't need to do that.) Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy holidays

This year, many people had COVID to fear,
The holidays are getting near,
One thing that will be clear,
We will still have holiday cheer,
Happy holidays and happy new year!!
From Interstellarity (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: Thank you, that is a kind sentiment! --bonadea contributions talk 11:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to Bonadea

@Bonadea Wishing you good health, prosperity, happiness on this Christmas. Merry Christmas!RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 02:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@RAJIVVASUDEV: Thank you very much! I wish you the same, for the holidays and for the year ahead. --bonadea contributions talk 11:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

hi bonadea I think you get paid for the articles

you might get paid for the articles ,but I work for free you might have become administrator due to contribution ,so did I am trying ,and no one has paid me ,do people pay to get articles featured in wikipedia let me know . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjanvii (talk • contribs) 11:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and I do not get paid to edit Wikipedia. I don't know if you are Kritn Ajitesh, or if Ajitesh has engaged you to create an article about him and the films he has been in, but if you intend to respect Wikipedia's policies you will stop doing that, and you will stop adding Ajitesh's name to other Wikipedia articles. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 11:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Your page is quite the honeypot, Bonadea.[6] I've speedy closed the AfD also. There needs to be some limit to the timewasting. Bishonen | tålk 13:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Yes, I do attract them! Thanks for stepping in. God fortsättning! --bonadea contributions talk 13:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) – can I just add that, if Bonadea is being paid to edit Wikipedia, it's not enough! Send cash now to make it better. Used notes only please, no consecutive serials. Thank you DBaK (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

An artist's rendition. Thanks, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered! I prefer to have this as a hobby, but I appreciate the sentiment :-) --bonadea contributions talk 11:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah but the duck is probably corrupt too. Trust no-one ... DBaK (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Bonadea!

Happy New Year!

Bonadea,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Happy New Year!

Bonadea,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

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

Happy New Year

	Happy new year 2021 !
	User:Bonadea, Wish you and your family a very Happy and prosperous New Year! best regards RV (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Account

Hi bonadea, You have filed a SPI file against my account. I am not the same as the mentioned account.This is a totally different account. I can provide Government Id(s) if they are needed for verification. And Yes, I am a freelancer in Upwork, but my work is Ghostwriting services. I had created the draft : Sandeep Kumar Mishra as I have read books about him. He is a Indian born poet, So I have come across his poems. I have not breached any rules of Wikipedia to my knowledge. But I tried to create a Article on him. I had found that already a draft has been declined about him and the reasons were neutrality and Reliable sources. I tried to create the article by editing, but got that declined too. So I tried to create a new article from that draft. But I don't know that the article will go directly into the Mainspace. I am sorry for that. And Yes, I tried to copy that draft , but only had it edited.I am sorry for doing that. Thanking you, Desmond Maverick (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't ever send official ID documents to strangers on the Internet (or offer to do so). It would be pointless to do so in any case, since it would not prove anything about your connection or lack of connection to the George Maverick account.

The reason your new account is not allowed is not simply your user name. When you were blocked, you were blocked, and you may not edit Wikipedia under any user name, nor may you do so without logging in. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm the user would have to send identification for three other people too, two of them called "Maverick". Drmies (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

ANI

Thanks for making this revert and correctly pointing out that this is tendentious editing. Drmies said the same thing. In September, I told the user I felt they were adding racist content, and Horse Eye's Back has provided further evidence on that. At some point we should take this to ANI. What do you think?VR _talk 20:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: thanks for this. It is very late here but I'll try to respond properly tomorrow – this is just an acknowledgement that I've seen it. --bonadea contributions talk 21:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Vice regent, that user needs to be topic banned at the very least from making any edits related to race and immigration, and particularly in relation to crime. Ping me if you go to ANI with it. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies and Bonadea, and looking forward to Bonadea's response.VR _talk 15:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Bonadea please respond whenever you get the chance :-) VR _talk 02:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Anoop Sasikumar

Hi friend, I just wanted to make a clarification here. You had commented that one of the votes in the deletion review of Anoop Sasikumar was canvassed by me. If I may clarify, I happened to come across that editor some time back and I came to know that he hails from my home state, Kerala. Hence I thought of getting his attention to this review as this review refers to a Malayalam writer. If you go through my post there, you would realize that I requested him to get involved only if he found the subject of the article notable. Malayalam is a language spoken by the inhabitants of one of the smallest Indian states and happenings there may not filter out to other parts of the country, let alone the world. Anyway, as one of those Userboxes says, my Wiki policy is "Contribute and let go", If this article gets deleted, let it be, for this is not the first time it is happening and this will not be the last time, too. Thanks and happy Wikilife --jojo@nthony (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Now, I also see that my edit to tag my earlier comment as "Keep" has been commented upon by you. Again, as a clarification, I failed to tag my original comment and that could have been the reason why a bot listed the review for soft deletion. It was this which prompted me to edit my comment to include the tag, with the comment, "comment tagged as 'Keep'". There was no sneaky intent behind my action. --jojo@nthony (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Reply by Paul Carpenter

I agree with this reply by Paul Carpenter. Why do you think this is just personal attack when it is clear and credible legal threat. I think the admin Bishonen and others should be alerted, this is not his first time. --Walrus Ji (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "just" a personal attack. People get (rightly) blocked for personal attacks, and this editor has been posting the same kind of attacks on the same editors previously; that is not acceptable and must not be allowed to pass. They may or may not be blocked for the legal threat, and they had already been alerted to that fact by Paul Carpenter, but if that happens and they subsequently retract the threat and are unblocked, it is vital that they understand the need for more civility. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 17:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Bonadea, ok. I just think this user has exhausted his good faith quota, and has shown that he is upto no good. Walrus Ji (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I see I warned that user sharply in June 2020. Irredeemable caste warrior, apparently. Surprised they haven't been blocked yet. Well, I'll take care of that. Bishonen | tålk 18:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC).

Books & Bytes - Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, November – December 2020

• New EBSCO collections now available
• 1Lib1Ref 2021 underway
• Library Card input requested
• Libraries love Wikimedia, too!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate Referencing

Bonadea hi, I have noted your comments relating to my insertions. In “Varasudochadu” there is an omission - the song "Pachi Pala" is based on Ilaiyaraja’s song “Adi Raakayie” from his 1st film Annakilli made in 1976. Also there is an error – the song "Jamjanaku Jhanaku" is sung by SPB & P. Susheela and not by SPB & Chitra. This information is from my knowledge. Now let me know how this insertion and rectification could be carried out and what could be the appropriate referencing for these 2 items. Joseph dias (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Newbie on Wikipedia

Hi Bonadea, I am new at wikipedia and at learning phase. have seen your message on my talk page. Can you please assist in improving my edits for any page like Thrasio, the one you highlighted in message. Edits that can improve the issues in the page. Thanks!Boywithglasses (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It is vital that you

• use only one Wikipedia account, instead of creating multipe accounts for editing the same set of articles (see WP:SOCK)
• declare which edits you are being paid to make (see WP:PAID)
• never cut and paste text into Wikipedia from sources (see WP:COPYVIO) ; note that edits such as this does not fix the copyright violation or the plagiarism issues
• don't add incomprehensible jargon like "surfing the Amazon third-party ecosystem".

Thrasio will be deleted as it is about a company with no notability, and it has been created in violation of Wikipedia's policies. But the above points apply everywhere on Wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 07:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Bonadea for the guidelines! This is my first account and have not used any accounts for my edits. I was not paid for any edits. I just want to be an active contributor at wiki. I even dont know if we can earn money by making edits too on wiki. The cut and paste part i understand, the content on wiki should be unique and copy of any article. Will make changes in content to fix it. Will remove these jargons from that page too. Thanks! This company is really in news these days and is being covered at different news sites. I found it to be very notable, why you think it is not? Is there any evaluation tool for this?Boywithglasses (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

FTR: Boywithglasses and three other accounts have been blocked for sockpuppetry. --bonadea contributions talk 14:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Park Yoo_chun edits

Hi Bonadea, where do I start? Well firstly editing is hard. I need as much help as I can get and there is a lot of reading. Some doesn't make sense. Wikicommons advised for licence that I need to send that form to the person who owned the photo. I spent a week tracking to find the person, found the celebrity instead. I do not have a relationship with him and all edits were done impartial and without knowing him. fans have contacted and given me information to use for edits. I have not used their opinions but valid sources. I found lots of cited articles were incorrectly used and some information had been typed up and cited but the articles didn't even talk about what was written. I fund about 2 articles to contradict every article that I have removed under policy - non-viable. Everything has been done by the book apart from my asking to change the main name. I need help, not to be banned or turned away. genuine help and proper advice on what to do to achieve the name change.

When I got Photo permission that wiki commons asked me to find, that is when I got told that the name is wrong and they are not happy. They are not English people. I wanted to do something that I felt was a normal request. It seems like it has now caused COI.

Can you show me where you see promotion and I will remove that because in no way do I want to promote him. I am getting facts onto it, facts that are indisputable. I am happy to have a meeting with you and provide all my evidence to support my edits. Maybe zoom? do you do that at all?

I am passionate because I like being an editor and am enjoying this hobby. I would like to do more but I do need to chat to admins from time to time like this to build positive collaboration and to learn. What would you like me to do to fix things?20footfish (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

is it the name of the photo? the fan con? I can take it off.20footfish (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

20footfish and Park Yoo-Chun

I know you are busy so thank you.

I now see the many errors of my way. I didn't do these steps on COI guidelines. I had some admin help me understand better. I did use other articles as an excuse didn't I. I suppose that makes me COI.

I really am struggling to put in an edit request to get it all fixed up ASAP. its my only way of removing the COI which I also misunderstood as something I could remove. I have now been told that other users can but not me. It can be done through edit request when the article is reverted back. Do you know how long that will take? do you know if its already on the edit list?

This is where I failed and by contacting others, I got invested in the project.

Have editors review your draft. To have a draft reviewed, paste {{AfC submission|||ts=20210129195859|u=20footfish|ns=3}} on top of your draft, or ask for opinions on the article talk page using the {{request edit}} template. You can also ask at the Conflict of interest noticeboard, Editor assistance requests, or WikiProject Integrity. Don't use other articles as excuses: If you find other articles similar to the one you plan to suggest, but they have problems as described above, it's not a good idea to use them as justification for your suggestions. They may be tagged or deleted at any time. Make your suggestions according to our policies and guidelines, then they are more likely to be accepted and your article is less likely to get deleted. Accept that other editors can and will edit all articles: Once an article is created or changed, no one controls its content. Any editor has the right to add or remove material to the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is any publicly available material on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. The solution is to fairly summarize both good and bad aspects of a subject, in proportion to the coverage they receive in reliable sources.20footfish (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Since the coversation is ongoing in a couple of other places, I'd prefer not to have it here as well. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 20:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

DiVA page

Hej,

You commented earlier on my post about DiVA. I have updated it in accordance to your suggestions, e.g. more third party references.

Could you please give it another look?

Can you fix this?

Hello, I moved a bio page Leslie Jones (comedian) to Leslie Jones (Supermarket Sweep). Because I edited to redirect page I cannot fully correct this move. Can you please do it for me. Thanks. Pewter917 (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack Frost helped with the move and it's back where it belongs. There's a learning curve to editing Wikipedia so please bear with me. Pewter917 (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Removing Maintenance Templates

So I assumed that when you removed information a week ago that you deemed irrelevant and overly specific and then did nothing else, that you were finished and I removed the templates. What is the best way for me to determine when you deem it an acceptable level of specific so I can remove the notices? Thank you in advance for your advice. AnnieBee3 (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

But I added the template after my other edits, because it was obvious to me that I would not be able to clean the article up within any kind of reasonable time. What is the hurry? And why should you want to remove the templates at all? My advice to you is not to remove them, and to read the information about COI editing that's on your user talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 06:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi I have opened a case under Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

Hello there Bonadea I would like to inform you that I have opened a case of Ashish Chanchlani under Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard to have a more clear consensus about the available sources, please check This for more info, ThanksDtt1^Talk 19:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, that was closed before I had a chance to see it, but I wouldn't have contributed anyway since there's clearly no point in opening a DRN case to determine the notability for an article that is currently in AfD, given that that's the whole point of the AfD discussion. Maybe you didn't know about the AfD when you posted to DRN. I'll contribute to the AfD tomorrow, it's getting to be past my bedtime now. --bonadea contributions talk 21:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Not a paid editor

I did not post a disclaimer with my employer because I am not being paid to edit Dave Anthony's page. I am a fan of his podcast but I have no financial interest in editing his page. I'm at my only job right now. It's a food distributor in Michigan with less than zero interest in Dave Anthony. AnnieBee3 (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)AnnieBee3

I have talked to anonymous on the talk page. Repeatedly. I have explained my reasons. You are advising me not to assume malicious intent, meanwhile this editor is accusing me of lacking integrity, being a vandal, etc. It is against Wikipedia's rules to use a BLP to continue disputes. This anonymous user has a dispute with Dave Anthony. They are using his Wikipedia page to continue said dispute. I have never claimed to be completely unbiased. I am able to write Dave Anthony's page because I am a Dave Anthony fan. I have attempted to be respectful. I have not taken to the page of Damn Interesting, the other party in the plagiarism dispute, and done any malicious editing and I would appreciate the same from the anonymous user toward the page I wrote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_BLPs_to_continue_disputes — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnieBee3 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The IP editor also should not assume bad faith on your part, but you absolutely cannot ascribe thoughts or motives to other people. That you are a fan of Anthony may mean that you subconsciously wish to create a Wikipedia article that paints him in a positive light – and you have to admit the fact that every single edit you have made to Wikipedia has been to that same article, so it might be a good idea if you took a step back and did not edit it at all until you have got some experience from other areas of the encyclopedia, where you don't have a very strong personal interest in the subject.

It might also be a good idea for you to post the fact that you are not paid by Anthony to your user talk page – nobody is going to see your post here (well, except myself, but I have no especial authority.) Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 21:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Notification

Just letting you know that I filed a dispute resolution to get this quote situation hammered out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Dave_Anthony — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnieBee3 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

OK. I'm not really a party of the dispute – I asked you to stop edit warring about the plagiarism text, but I don't have a strong opinion one way or another. (It is not a BLP violation but it might perhaps be WP:UNDUE. Or perhaps not.) --bonadea contributions talk 13:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Addition – I got curious so I looked into it, and I do not think it is undue at all. I have commented at Talk:Dave Anthony. --bonadea contributions talk 15:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Draft:Godi Media

An article that you have been involved in editing—Draft:Godi Media—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 122.179.109.33 (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

I'm D7869,Can I edit the article of Khajwa Chhatarpur, give me permission

I give you source

Links

https://hi.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%96%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE,_%E0%A4%9B%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%B0

https://oksettlement.wordpress.com/2021/02/15/khajwa-chhatarpur/

I am edit article yes or No — Preceding unsigned comment added by D7869 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Replied on your user talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 12:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I apologize to you that I edited the article of Khajwa Chhatarpur. If I gave you the source, what article can I edit?

Kahjwa is the small town or largest Village in Chhatarour district in the indian state of Madhya Pradesh....

Link

        census2011
            ↓

https://www. .co.in/data/village/457992-khajwa-madhya-pradesh.html

http://wikiedit.org/India/Khajwa/135636/

       onefivenine
          ↓

http://www..com/india/villages/Chhatarpur/Rajnagar/Khajwa

I sent two links because these links were not being published.You www. Have to put census 2011 and same method of onefivenine

If you agree with this source, then allow me to edit Khajwa, Chhatarpur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D7869 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@D7869: When you discover that you cannot add a link in a reference on Wikipedia, that is because that URL is on the blacklist. Here is information about onefivenine.com – it should not be used as a source. census2011.co.in is also blacklisted, as it is not a reliable source. The wikiedit.org link has already been removed from the article a couple of times – it is also not usable, even though it is not a blacklisted domain. --bonadea contributions talk 14:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

So please tell me how the source should be. You can give me some suggestions, help me that I can provide you a source. For me you are like a teacher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D7869 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@D7869: Have a look at your user talk page. There are several different links there to information pages about reliable sources. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 20:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Neeraj Ahirwar (M.P).-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear. Thanks for letting me know, @Ponyo: – my sock klaxon did not go off on that one. --bonadea contributions talk 08:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Meaning of term

Hello, you used the term "Daim" recently. Could you please explain what you mean? Thank-you. You the man(converse) 08:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not a term, it is the name of a chocolate bar. --bonadea contributions talk 08:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For finding and nominating the articles like Mir Mohammed Raza which is completely against the policies of Wikipedia. The previous AFD was compromised by a sock account. Keep up the work and guys like me are with you in this fight. Kichu🐘 Discuss 10:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)