User talk:Bonadea/Archive 9

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thanks for helping clean up my userpage! Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help! :-) --bonadea contributions talk 18:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You have deleted the article I have written on HighRadius. The purpose of writing this article is generate an awareness among people about Financial Supply Chain( we don't have a article on FSCM on Wikipedia..thats a surprise!!) This was a attempt to spread knowledge about different SAP FSCM terms like Billers direct , collection management etc.

I would like you to consider this article again and allow it to be posted back.

Thanks You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreyansh20 (talk • contribs) 11:12 13 October 2010 (UTC) comment moved here from my user page

Replied on your talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 11:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your notes/edits in Andre Geim's article pages. All correct sources(like: http://www.scientific-computing.com/features/feature.php?feature_id=1, http://www.russia-ic.com/education_science/science/breakthrough/1176/, http://www.forward.com/articles/131944/, and many other non-online references) and right discussions there show that he is completely a Jewish. I am almost a new user and English is my 4th language; I propose that you kindly edit the article as follow: (there is the same text in the Richard Feynman's page)

Andre Geim is from a Jewish family. His family originated from Germany.

By the way, in Geim's article there, should add a main general section named Biography, and then add an under-section named Education, something similar to Richard Feynman's page in the Wikipedia.

Thanks & regards.

P.S. It seems that there are some editors and administrators whose are colluding in the editing there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian.X1 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, user Historian.X is likely a sock-puppet of user Russian.science who has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppeteering, unsourced edits, and reverting.

Now it appears he is trying to collude random users (one of whom is you), into affecting an article where legitimate consensus has been reached. Please review the article discussion, and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Russian.science

before taking any actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therexbanner (talk • contribs) 15:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The appeal to me is presumably based on this single edit where I made the mistake of editing the article to revert what appeared to be removal of sourced information, without looking at the talk page discussion first. Since then, I have read the talk page, and refrained from editing the article. I have no opinion in the matter other than that the ethnicity of a person is almost always unimportant, in particular when the person's life and work are unrelated to his ethnicity (I mean, if it was an article about a Rabbi, his ethnicity might be relevant, but for a scientist, not so much.) I'm not getting involved in the kerfluffle surrounding that article. --bonadea contributions talk 15:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Good call, I don't care either, it's all about proper sourcing. --Therexbanner (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I do retract my edit summary and apologize Bondadea and 77.23.229.191. I'm not familiar with the book. It needs a credible citation.

I agree, it does need a citation - and I did look it up to verify that it existed before reverting your edit but I really ought to have added a source! The grammar issue is not an issue really - both versions are fine and I wouldn't have reverted your edit if it hadn't been for the book thing. Sorry if I came over a bit strongly. --bonadea contributions talk 20:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

hi, i've noticed that when i updated the list of socialnetworkins websites you changed it back to its origional state, i would like to know why you did this when the information i put into wikipedia was correct. bye for now samstar888 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samstar888 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You changed the information in the article to say that Facebook was launched in October 2010, which is clearly incorrect, and that the site is open for people from the age of 14 and older, which is contrary to what the sources say. You also changed the date of publication of a cited newspaper article, to a date in the future to the date on which you read it instead of the date it was published. And those are the reasons I reverted your edits. --bonadea contributions talk 19:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I was mistaken about the changed date - it was still changed to the wrong day, but not a date in the future. Blame my bad eyes that couldn't see the difference between "26" and "28". --bonadea contributions talk 12:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hide this message To list a page in this category, do not edit this category page. Instead, edit the page you want to list, adding Category:Non-profit organizations based in the Philippines at the bottom. See FAQ/Categorization for details.

The above is as clear as MUD When I am tryimng to add a new orgaisation tHERE IS NO PAGE TO EDIT OTHER THAN THE PAGE WITH THE LIST OF ORGASNISATIONS????? Daintyweb (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Responding on your talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 09:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Bonadea Earlier this year I was granted "Reviewer" status for the above site. The status has expired and I now find that the site has been edited yet again by the same person (a past student of the School) who seems determined to add erroneous and possibly libelous information on the site. I have tracked the culprit and written to him advising him that action will be taken if he continues with his actions. However, I am unsure what I can really do to prevent similar postings being made. Can you advise me? NilgirisNilgiris (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nilgiris, I'm not quite sure what you mean by being granted "Reviewer" status for the Woodside School site. Reviewer is a status that a Wikipedia editor can be granted to be able to approve edits made to certain Wikipedia articles which are subject to a lot of vandalism and prank edits. Woodside School, Ooty does not appear to be one of those articles, and in any case reviewer status is not connected to any one particular article.

Vandalism to school articles is very common, unfortunately. Students add erroneous and sometimes slanderous information to articles about their schools because they are too immature to realise what it is they are doing. All we regular editors can do is keep an eye on the articles, remove the vandalism, and make sure that all the information in the article is sourced and relevant. --bonadea contributions talk 09:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what i am trying to do hours now. Please have a look in the edit log. Thanks--79.166.144.100 (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Please go to the Piri Reis Talk page Look at his version and my version, read the talk page please, I have explained to this person for hours, but he just keep on insisting on his own version, and deleting all my sources, which I have researched for hours, I tried to explain to him, he only doesnt understand or does not want to understand, please read and see it yourself.--DragonTiger23 (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the editing history and at the talk page; unfortunately nothing can change the fact that repeated reverting back and forth is edit warring and may in the end lead to blocking of the accounts involved. You both need to stop reverting immediately (even if the article should for a time be in the "wrong" state while you discuss). I am not weighing in on the subject as such because I know nothing about it, it's only the edit warring that makes me concerned. If you cannot come to an agreement you might try dispute resolution. --bonadea contributions talk 13:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

@DragonTiger23: Unfortunately you clearly lying. I've told you many times that I didn't deleted your refs, I find your refs irrelevant for what purpose you are trying to use them, but I left most of them, check it. I told many times I am ready to discuss all about it, you are denying 3 hours now to do it. Due to the clemency of Bonadea we still can talk. Please come to the talk page. I will explain AGAIN my points.--79.166.144.100 (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

@Bonadea who can resolve this dispute. Are you an admin? Do you know an admin who knows about this subject. I explained to the guy above me in the talk page of Piri Reis. I wrote pages of explanation. I disproved his claims see talk page of Piri Reis. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

He is not, but he is enough kind not to inform one about the incident. If he was, we had been past by know. Now, stop asking for hanging and come to discuss the issue in the talk page.-- 79.166.144.100 (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding more promptly - no, I'm not an administrator and as I said above, I don't want to get into the discussion about the subject matter; you could ask somebody over at the content noticeboard for input. Thank you both for stopping the revert war. --bonadea contributions talk 19:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

hello madam you have deleted the article 'purerianism' by me. This is a new word coined by me.i anticipate some of the habitual changes going to happen in future food industry thats why i started that new page.some good reasons are behind creating this article. I hate killing animals for food by humans. so i want a change in the attitude of humans toward killing to an extent possible by me and further direct in a different way to future as nanotechnology promise us. if you find inappropriate to have these kinds of contents at the initial stage then please guide me to present it as a better article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanoshiva (talk • contribs) 18:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 11:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't know how to request pages, so I made the page to request it. Can you put the deletion on hold until sunday so I have time to make it? Meatreaper (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 16:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This dispute over content in the Fencing article is one that's between me and Lugnuts. Sure he is causing an edit war, but we will be able to get through this disagreement. 117.4.206.247 (talk) 11:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not a content dispute. You are vandalising the article by adding a joke - amusing the first time, perhaps, but still vandalism, and when you keep doing it it's not even funny any longer. --bonadea contributions talk 11:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

...and the page's history shows that you've been doing it from several different IPs for several weeks, so it's not as if you don't know what you are doing. Please move on and do something constructive instead. --bonadea contributions talk 11:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've ARV'd it based on far more than 4 warnings across the multiple IPs, and asked if an admin will consider seeing if a rangeblock is possible or appropriate (really tired, and didnt look that intently at the IPs - just at the diffs with the same vandalism). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 11:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Good move, thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 11:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Any time. And their prize was... a 72 hour vacation away from Wikipedia! ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 20:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Bonadea. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Artgebra to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question - it's not about a person, and none of the other CSDs really fits. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know! --bonadea contributions talk 13:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a courtesy note to inform you that I have added an article to your AfD nomination. It happens to be the subject's husband, Ted Taveras. Both articles are created by the same editor, whom I suspect to have a close personal connection with the subject. I would ask you to kindly comment on this addition at the AfD. Thanks, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know! I will comment on the nomination as soon as I get the chance, later this afternoon hopefully. I agree with you completely about the COI here. --bonadea contributions talk 10:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if that was your bot that reverted my edits to Trichotillomania or you, but I am a recovering trichotillomaniac and I have gone to group therapy with atleast 50 people in it, and not one of them said they weren't embarassed or ashamed of their hair-pulling habits. The statement saying trichotillomaniacs MAY be ashamed is incorrect. I replace MAY with MOST LIKELY because I know that all those people were MOST LIKELY ashamed. My edits were not vandalism or unconstructive, and I'm already pissed off today, and my edits on a topic that I am very sensitive too being reverted pissed me off more. I don't appreciate it at all. A Word Of Advice From A Beast: Don't Be Silly, Wrap Your Willy! 03:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I would have responded on your talk page, but since you insist on using one account for editing and another one for your user page and user talk page, I'll reply here instead. First, if you feel offended I'm sorry, but your edits were not constructive: you edited sourced and neutrally-phrased information and inserted non-neutral language ("most likely") which had no source. Apart from the fact that you can't extrapolate your own experiences and that of 50 other people (50 people in group therapy? Well, if you say so.) to apply to all people, there is also the fundamental Wikipedia policy of no original research - what you know from your own experience can't be added to an article, because it constitutes original research. If you have a reliable source where a notable person is quoted as saying "most likely" the words can be added to the article. Otherwise, they can't. And where there is a source, you can't go in and change the information, because that makes it seem as if the source says something it doesn't. Finally, as a word of advice from me personally, it's better not to edit articles where the topic is so sensitive to you personally that you would get upset if your edits are changed or reverted. That's just my personal opinion, which you can ignore at will, but it does make editing much more rewarding for me anyway. --bonadea contributions talk 11:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you kindly respond to the talk page replies of the Bidrivals page you mentioned as spam thank you KeithKeithmonti (talk) 11:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have already done so - our messages may have crossed. --bonadea contributions talk 11:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.screenindia.com/news/the-original-superstar-rajesh-khanna/327356/ http://www.india-goa.info/Rajesh_Khanna

Pyarelal 'We had an unspoken bond that continues even today' “Rajesh Khanna was lucky for us and we were lucky for him too. From the 1969 Do Raaste to the 1986 Amrit, we gave hits together both as films and as music scores. We used so many singers for him - Rafisaab, Mukeshji, Mahendra Kapoor, Amit Kumar and Mohammed Aziz among them - but he would always request us to fit in Kishore Kumar wherever possible. I recall how Kishoreda was very reluctant to sing Waada tera waada in Dushmun and was insisting we get Rafi for it. We surrounded Kishoreda and Rajesh Khanna winked at Laxmi(kant) and me and told Kishoreda that in that case we would scrap the song. And he immediately changed his mind! “Rajesh had an unspoken bond with Laxmi and me. Even today, he sometimes calls up to recall the great times we had together and says, “Yaar humne kya kaam kiya hai!”. When we went on our first overseas concert tour in 1984, he came and danced to three songs. He was very particular about his music and would take a tape home if he could not assess a song. He would then give his feedback after a day or two. But if he liked a song at the sitting, he would loudly shout “Wah! Wah!” in appreciation. After he heard the mukhda of Mere dil mein aaj kya hai from Daag he stopped us from making him listen to the first antara and told Yash (Chopra)ji that it would be a hit! “It was God’s blessing that we came up with such a vast range of hit songs for him, including in his home productions Roti, Aashiq Hoon Baharon Ka and Chakravyuha. Incidentally, he had a stake in Mehboob Ki Mehndi too. He had great interest in music and a terrific sense of melody too. His music is dominated by Pancham (R.D.Burman) and us and we accepted Shakti Samanta’s Anurodh only because Rajesh Khanna had had some misunderstanding with Pancham then and did not want to work with him.” read article properly... already reference had been g iven so its wrong to claim that what i hve provided is wrong etc...Shrik88music (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not claim that you were wrong. I asked where the interview was, since that wasn't clear from the article; the reference was not in immediate connection to the quote. Thank you for the information. --bonadea contributions talk 18:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks for understanding

the reason i sent u msg was that my name was specifically mentioned and said that unsourced ones i hve put which is seriously wrong... please ensure the version stays ..Shrik88music (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fr/2003/04/18/stories/2003041800080100.htm

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13056306/10-Most-Romantic-Screencouples-of-All-Time

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13056306/10-Most-Romantic-Screencouples-of-All-Time

y whats the issue??? i have added whats written in the source.Quicklight (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Responded on the article's talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 17:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, I have to try to watch a Rajesh Khanna film one of these days - am curious to see the actor in action (and I have no doubt, personally, that he is excellent.) --bonadea contributions talk 17:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

great from my side i would suggest that ist u watch 1.Amar Prem 2.Anand 3.Redrose 4.Chailla Babau 5 Dil Daulat Duniya 6 Aradhana --these films will give u the idea of the superstarShrik88music (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

bewafai ---whats the problem with that artcile.. try to understand why reference was provided for at a particular place??? the artcile provided by me was compliling all the needed infoShrik88music (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Bewafai is a Hindi film starring the First Superstar of Indian Cinema Rajesh Khanna[2][3][4][5][6] and the Superstar of Tamil film industry Rajnikanth together for the very first time[--by now you are aware of this part of the story so why the revert???Shrik88music (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

During the making of the Rajesh Khanna starrer super-hit film Haathi Mere Saathi(1971),the producer Dhandayuthapani was part of the crew of the film as the office administrator and R.Thyagarajan was the editor of the film.--- its so meaningful why was it removed?Shrik88music (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

other than the explanation you have given to inform me that superstar word should be mentioned only in main site i would like to ask what about other things? have you ensured that all the information i had posted in bewafai , insaaf main karoonga , sitapur ki geeta -- have been retained -- i mean the information has been retained --(words may change - that does not matter to me).since you are cooperative just see and if any information has been removed by genaic you retain it by editing the artcile.

also in seetapur ki geeta you have removed rajesh khanna's name from cast. what was that? its credited in the film after all he is a superstar and if he was in special appearance even then he is credited as appearing in the film as spl app. FYI in sitapur ki geeta, khanna appears as boyfriend of hema malini and he has appearance in the film for 25 minutes and then he dies. this results in hema becoming a dacoit by name of geeta.Shrik88music (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Bonadea. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Stephanie Gowlett, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 21:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello bonadea, I have made several edits to the Motive Interactive page to help provide a more neutral point of view. If you have any added suggestions please let me know. I am not a member of the company and my efforts in writing this page are to bolster companies that do help control spam and fraud for internet consumers. If my edits have met your requirements could you please remove the two tag’s form the page? If I still need to do more to make the page right for Wikipedia please let me know what steps to take. Thank You --ESMcL 17:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ESMcL (talk • contribs)

Hello Bonadea. I am just letting you know that I deleted Manicorn, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the vandalism reverts on my talk page!! :) CTJF83 chat 03:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Not small at all!

Over 1000 it quite sufficent even for an election in the USA. Please tell me why it's considered to be small? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan.nilson (talk • contribs) 21:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The text in the article did not say what was actually in the source. The text in the article claimed "According to an analysis by George A. Berglund, published November 5, 2010, the building is considered to be almost in class with Uppsala Castle and Uppsala Cathedral regarding its symbolic value for Uppsala." but the source actually says that a survey, asking 1370 people (out of a population of 190,000 or so) indicates that 32.2% of the people interviewed consider the building to be a symbol for Uppsala, while 35,8% believe that it might become such a symbole in future. So it is not in fact Berglund's analysis (he's merely interviewed about the survey result), and the survey result does not in fact indicate that UKK is considered to be almost in class with the Castle or the Cathedral as a symbol of the town. --bonadea contributions talk 21:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The source is a survey done by Berglund. So he has done it all, the survey, analysis, the whole. But it is as you say, there is a future component involved.Johan.nilson (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Will it be OK if I dig up the source? Johan.nilson (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

...and regarding the sample size, it doesn't matter if there are 200 milj people or just 25 000 the 1000+ still sufficent. Sorry for my bad spelling and english and all...Johan.nilson (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi! It appears directly in the text that Berglund conducted the survey and the analysis.Cecilia Anderson (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You deleted that Berglund is taking part in an ongoing debate concerning an airport. I thought that was something to note. That to take part in an official debate in the community is important? Have not political debates something to do with notability? As far as I can understand he sort of created the debate, when he created/constructed the actual questions. The ones that is said to be biased.Johan.nilson (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the notability; Berglund has been in the media since the 1980s and up until now. Berglund is known and recognized as an expert on IT investments. He made several "investigations" during the financial crisis from 1990 to 1994. He is on the front page for two consecutive years in leading paper Computer Sweden. He conducted the analysis on Boo.com and was one of the very few who realized that nothing worked when it came to the business concept. Berglund has a strong presence in the media and has made 20-40 opionion polls only during 2005-2010. All these are published.

I do not know if this has anything to do with it: In addition, Berglund also appeared as "model" in magazines, brochures, flyers, etc. He also appeared in a nationwide extensive advertising, for nearly a year. His picture was on the subway, buses, shopping centers, etc.. And in 2,5 meters hight in stores. And in magazines and... The ads are of course possible to get at. But is this of interest?Cecilia Anderson (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Still somewhat learning the editing/creation side of wiki, so I wasn't 100% on how to move articles without looking it up. Thanks for making the move though. Jasonstru (talk)jasonstru

No worries - it takes a while to learn all the functions. Welcome to Wikipedia! --bonadea contributions talk 10:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bonadea,

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Art_School, it "is written like an advertisement" according to administrator "Unt123" in "May 2009" and it was not taken down since.

You seem to have edited out all the advertising jargon - thank you. Does it have the criteria for "general notability guidelines"? If so, good. If not, what could I do to improve the quality of the wikipedia article?

Thank you very much. Domenico.y (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Domenico.y

Hello, and forgive me for not responding more promptly. I will have a look at it and get back to you :-) Note that I'm not in charge of the article and my opinion regarding how well the article conforms to Wikipedia's guidelines is just the opinion of one editor. --bonadea contributions talk 13:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bonadea, Thank you very much for answering my query. Could delete your comment about "general notability guidelines" then please? Thanks, 14.200.69.191 (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Domenico.y (talk)

What? But Rowling IS stupid and her invention of mock-Latin words for the spells is an example of that! It is SO obvious that it's a desperate attempt to appear educated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.131.13 (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This is your opinion, and uncited opinions don't belong in Wikipedia. And derogatory language about other people is prohibited - please note that your persistent use of disparaging language, insults and other offensive terms are likely to get you blocked. If you have any reliable sources discussing how and why Rowling came up with those particular words for spells (some of them are, as you know, real Latin while others are made up, possibly in order to sound like Latin) you could add that information, without any personal reflections, positive or negative. --bonadea contributions talk 13:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hej hej! Could you please let me know why is this page happened to be victim of Speedy Deletion? Should I change something or write more? Mvh, --UgroSzarvas (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I tagged the article for deletion (note that I didn't actually delete it - only administrators can delete articles and I'm not one) because I couldn't see that there was any claim to notability for the company. (Please follow the link "notability" to see the notability requirements for companies and organisations). This is not a value judgment of any sort on the company, it has only to do with whether there are reliable independent sources that have made a reasonably in-depth coverage of the company.

One thing you can do if you want to be able to work on the article in peace for a while is to create it as a sub-page of your user page, for instance at User:UgroSzarvas/Talk Fusion - see also this information. Hope this helps! --bonadea contributions talk 19:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I've done extensive research on this page and it all seems to check out. I don't understand why you would suggest that it should be removed. His music videos are affiliated with MTV, he has a reality show that has been picked up by the CW network, and he has a music and film deal with Universal. He's the youngest owner ever of a professional basketball team which happens to also be global (ABA) He's also one of Atlanta's top producing real estate agents. He is a socialite and exclusive party promoter in the greater Atlanta area as well. He seems to be extremely notable and worthy of a wikipedia entry as far as I'm concerned. His sites www.AdrianProvost.com and www.PlanetProvost.com are very notable, as well as his charity Life Juice. He's had numerous television appearances and is well known throughout society. I've reviewed plenty of articles on wikipedia and I can not seem to find justification for the deletion of this page, but the inclusion of some of those other articles. It doesn't seem to make sense to me, please help me understand this. I've spent a considerable amount of time researching the subject and even more time in contributing to the article. I would appreciate an explanation in further detail and would like to know the necessary steps to get this included so I don't feel as if I have wasted so much of my time. Thanks - With Kind Regards I Remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.45.168 (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 09:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW these are a few that I know about already that I searched for, the names of the victims haven't been included purposely, due to Adrian's wishes. His mother was asked at the time of the accident if they wanted to include his name and she opted not to. Adrian has been in multiple magazines, newspapers, and television shows that haven't been included simply because they were unnecessary for completion of the article. If required I can submit additional information. Thanks.74.166.45.168 (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Please use the dedicated discussion page for the article deletion discussion. I will not discuss this article on any user talk pages because it fractures the discussion to have it in several different places. Please use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Provost to argue your case. --bonadea contributions talk 09:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Bonadea, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ultimate Baseball League, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you.   -- Lear's Fool 12:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello bonadea. Sorry for Redzone33, it was just a experiment I tried after a failed all nighter :), only a example I would have deleted by now after the exam :). Thanks for your message, I am active in editing especially on FC Dinamo Bucuresti page :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulFCB (talk • contribs) 15:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey PaulFCB, thanks for your note :-) Just as a comment, when you created the page you used the edit summary "this is a cheating page" or something on those lines - and that's maybe not the best phrasing to use, because after all Wikipedia is a very public space! Anyway, no harm done. Happy editing! --bonadea contributions talk 18:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Me and Wilbysuffolk, are best friends not on Wikipedia. It was a joke and not a real edit. He did not consider this offensive. '''Adam mugliston''' (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

...very much! SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Bonadea. May I change your user rights to "autopatrolled"? You've created a lot of valid articles and your overall work here is very good (at least from what I know :)). I don't think we need to check your creations and ... the unpatrolled backlog is quite large. Please, let me know what do you think about it. Best regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Happy editing, and many greetings to Sweden :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheers & tack! ;-) --bonadea contributions talk 16:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The article Georges Khabbaz is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georges Khabbaz until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. bender235 (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is it that you delete my citation - yet keep word for word the content that comes direct from my site (http://smokeelectroniccigarettes.org/?p=12)? That proves that you think the content deserves to be there, and if so the citation should be there. If not, then you should be removing the content that comes word for word from my site as well.

"Examples of popular flavors are plain tobacco, blueberry, strawberry, cola, menthol, coffee, fruits, chocolate and vanilla." "A full electronic cigarette cartridge generally lasts for about 250 puffs" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footsoreaxe (talk • contribs) 08:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Good morning Bonadea, I received the same message and replied here. Best, CliffC (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, CliffC - I've been teaching all day with very short breaks so haven't had time to formulate a response. Thanks for letting me know - seems the matter is well in hand. --bonadea contributions talk 20:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Bonadea,

I'm trying to address the issues you are commenting on. I'm addressing the links, etc. Please give me examples of notority. Patrick is a nationally known attorney; as demonstrated by the NY tims and other top newspapers calling him for his views when something high-profile is going on. Plus, he is one of the few federal prosecutions who has convicted a governor on all counts -- and I do have a reference for that. He's also been interviewed by NPR, ABC, etc about issues.

I'm aware of the issues, so are the warning boxes necessary in the read mode? It makes the page look unprofessional.

Thanks much for your feedback.

Kristie Kennedy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoeykennedy1 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Bonadea,

I wrote you an note the other day and never received a reply. It would be very helpful if you explained with examples what you are talking about. I do believe you have a problem with this person/article. If you were to look at other other attorney profiles you would see they talk about their practice area. I took out anything that would read as an advertisement and it only states facts. The site was just created so how can you expect other sites to already link to it. I did notice yesterday that a site has only done this. I will work on creating more links.

Please explain if you have a personal problem with this and how it still reads as an advertisement. You're edits are not completely accurate because you do not know the situation and history.

Please give example and look at other sites. I believe the boxes should be removed.

Thanks for your attendtion to this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoeykennedy1 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I had replied on your user talk page, and have done so again now. --bonadea contributions talk 13:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Bonadea, Thank you very much for your feedback and are trying hard to follow your feedback. The person who is working on this is not from Collins law firm -- not affiliated at all. Just someone who has followed the corruption issues in the united states and work that has been done to alleviate it if possible like Operation Greylord that has been mentioned on othe sites.

The Illinois Reform Commission is unprecedented. It made national headlines for the much need and important work that resulted -- the NY Times and other top print outlines acknowledged and wrote about it. With convicting Governor Ryan, it also made national news and was reported on by the NY Times, major Media networks, etc. -- governors sentenced to prison is big news whether its Ryan or other governors. I will continue to get references. I thought the piece looked pretty fact based but can review.

Thanks for your feedback and will continue to work hard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoeykennedy1 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Bonadea, how do you feel now about adding a COI tag to the article? Drmies (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Well, an IP registered to Collins' firm has made a large number of edits to the article, so there have undeniably been a lot of COI edits - but you've done some good clean-up work and I think the article is fairly neutral in tone now. The COI tag can probably be removed at this point, in my opinion. (Incidentally, why is the section about his work with Perkins Coie called "Private practice"? If he's employed by a firm he's not in private practice, right? Or does "private" refer to "non-governmental"?) --bonadea contributions talk 21:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Bonadea, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Mech Manga Bible Heroes to a proposed deletion tag. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - it seems that "context" is open for interpretation ;-) "X is a comic book" does give a semantic description, but it doesn't, in fact, provide any context to the reader, to my mind. It says nothing at all about whether it is an old or contemporary book, it tells us nothing about who wrote it, the nationality of the author, or who the intended audience may be - and it's these things, not the semantic definition, that constitute context enough to identify the article's subject. I know absolutely nothing about the subject of the article after having read it. However, I will be more careful in future, and avoid the noxontext speedy tag. --bonadea contributions talk 14:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi . please what is the problem in the sentence I added to William White article --Option forword (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 18:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey i don see why this needs to be deleted.All these company are into the same business http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdBrite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdTaily http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blogads http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontera http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zedo

so why this being targeted? Kindly let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandvalue (talk • contribs) 11:43, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 11:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks you forgave the ``dork-out´´ ! Also, i was reliefed that there are kind people with humor in the wiki world. And thanks for the smile ^^

michael rosetta 20:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem :-) You get all sorts of people here, in fact, some are more curmudgeonly than others perhaps - but I see no reason to come down on somebody like a ton of bricks when they've said they won't do it again. If you feel like doing some constructive editing, you're more than welcome back. Have fun! --bonadea contributions talk 21:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Xim3, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you! -- Rahul^{Text me} 17:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 17:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am extremely sorry about this. i was using STiki and had no idea that you were removing copyvio text Rahul^{Text me} 17:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry - no harm done. Happy editing! --bonadea contributions talk 17:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed that article for PRIMO MULTIMEDIA. I chopped it wayyyy down. Hope that helps. Wikilover8099 (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Wikilover8099

I don't understand how a link to the BBB in Ontario is not considered a reliable source. It is a fact. They have been given a "F". I will reinsert this and would appreciate if you would not delete it. TruthInAll (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 19:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Stifle! When you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1001 Internet Jokes as delete and deleted 1001 Internet Jokes, you didn't delete 1001 Internet Jokes II which was part of the AfD - not sure if it was intentional or not (but am guessing not, as you didn't mention deleting just one of the articles when you closed the debate). The AfD link on 1001 Internet Jokes II was broken by an edit a couple of days ago but it seems very unlikely that that could have prevented any interested parties from participating in the discussion. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 18:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Gone now; for future reference please tag such pages with {{db-afd}}. Stifle (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer - will do so in future. --bonadea contributions talk 15:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What did I do for Bewafai..... I've edited everything correctly. Once I made a mistake as 1986, I reverted it as 1985... check it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vensatry (talk • contribs) 07:52, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 15:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you stop? why are you deleting my page? There is absolutly nothing wrong with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BanksKarter (talk • contribs) 15:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Please respect Wikipedia guidelines - they have been pointed out to you by several people, multiple times, on your talk page. The bottom line is that you are not (yet) notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, and the pages you create are inappropriate. In addition, the repeated removal of speedy deletion tags from the article is considered vandalism; you are of course entitled to argue for the article being kept, but you need to follow Wikipedia's rules when you edit Wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 15:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Du har rullat tilbaks en updatering jag gjort - varfor? Kostnad av bilforsakring har stigat enormt pa sistone har i UK. Kanke tanker hitta nagan referens sjalv til detta text. There we go, gamla trasig svenska oxa! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.106.215 (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I posted to the talk page of the IP you used when you made the edit, but if you were allocated a different IP the next time you accessed the Internet you wouldn't have seen that message. The external link you used as a reference did not seem to be appropriate per Wikipedia's external links policy - at least that's how I judged it. If you disagree you should post to the article's talk page to get other opinions, because I may obviously be wrong about this. Or you could find another, more authoritative source.

Thank you, btw, for your effort to communicate in Swedish ;-) As a general rule, all communication should be in English, here, because it's an open communication and everybody who uses English Wikipedia should be able to read and understand and so on and so forth, but I still appreciate the gesture! --bonadea contributions talk 11:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about my IP, never looked at it. But, Ah you are welcome - yes, i updated it because everyone is getting really hammered about the cost of insuring a car, so it is not just northern ireland. I just took the first link i found about the cost, because it was also a new article - as an old Kalmarite, it seemed only fair to drop some Swenglish :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.106.215 (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Just seen the news today on BBC that I was right about the increase, and that the European Court has now voted to the same. Confirming that Insurance companies are now increasing rates. Have added this to the talk page, but you might do well to revert the change you made... restore the article and my ego :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.82.161 (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for deafening silence - I was probably distracted by something shiny :-) The source you originally used is still inappropriate (essentially it's a brief informational page intended to make people use a particular commercial service), but the BBC is obviously a good source. This article talks about rising costs for insurance, without the estimated increase for 2011 (which, to be honest, the original reference didn't mention). Restoring that info with the BBC ref. Feel free to improve on my edit, or add more sourced information. The problem with the insurance article (like many other Wikipedia articles) is that it attracts spam links so I'm probably being overly cautious. Thanks for your gracious reply! --bonadea contributions talk 15:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Bonadea - I was actually more impressed by the statement that insurance was rising 33p per day (than the 31 or 31 % states.....percentages being fairly meaningless, and a hard 33p being indicitive), and the original source stated a fact, rather than relative value (percentage), so it was an okay source...i think. However, all told I agree that the BBC is always a failsafe option. Thanks for helpong me bed in around here. I might register as Leif-Lokket! Ma Bra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.94.224 (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure! --bonadea contributions talk 16:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

That link was a directory of every company in the United States that Outsources. How is that not relevant on a page about outsourcing? In addition please highlight for me exactly what violation of Wikipedia's link policy posting this link violates.

In my opinion it follows under:"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[2] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."

Out of respect, I won;t restore the link until you clarify your opinion on the matter. But please cite specific violations if you feel this is still a violation of Wikipedia's policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.199.238 (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at the "About us" page of the website you linked to. That is not simply a site indicated to be a directory of companies (and there is no information about who is behind the list, so no way of knowing that it's "every company") - it is a site intended to promote a particular point of view concerning outsourcing from one specific country. In fact, it is evident from every page of the site that it is not a website that contains neutral material (I make no judgment concerning whether the information is accurate), so that inclusion criterion is not met. Rather, inclusion of the link would promote the website rather than provide information (per point 2 in this policy). If you disagree with me about the site's suitability, you should feel free to start a discussion about it on the article's talk page, where other interested editors can weigh in about it. --bonadea contributions talk 18:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I didn't link to the general site. I linked to the directory. Which cannot be considered any more biased then a phone book. I don't know how else to point out the mis statements you made above so with respect I will list them.

1. You said: "and there is no information about who is behind the list, so no way of knowing that it's "every company"" Obviously the "who" behind the list is the website / organization of Outsaurus.com" 2. "so no way of knowing that it's "every company"" Obviously the list doesn't include every company as that would be imposable. The periodic table of elements does not contain every element in existence, only the ones we know about. 3. You said: "In fact, it is evident from every page of the site that it is not a website that contains neutral material" Maybe you have a different definition of neutral but I see this site as making statements of indisputable facts. (naming companies that outsourced jobs from the United States.) And every article is properly referenced with links to legitimate news articles. However, this is still a moot point because I did not link to entire site, I liked to a directory.

Please reply. Thank you.

p.s. In addition; this directory has been referenced by legitimate news organization MSNBC (where I heard about it) and CNN.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.199.238 (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC) 

No, it is not an unbiased phone book - please look a little more closely at the page and you'll see what I mean. What they call the "directory" (actually just a list of company names) is headed by the website's logo which features their tagline, promoting their POV. The right-hand frame on that page also clarifies the POV very unambiguously. A few of the company names in the list are linked to blog posts which are anything but neutral. Yes, obviously the people behind the list are the people behind the website, but the site includes no information about who they are and there is no indication that they are authorities on the subject, so it is unclear where this list comes from and why the information is credible (even disregarding the biased slant). It was you who claimed, above, that the page was a "directory of every company in the United States that Outsources", so my use of "every company" was a direct quote.

The list of names without any of the surrounding text on the past is neutral information to some extent, but the rest of the page is not neutral. Not referring to the rest of the site here, but the linked page. It becomes eminently clear from the page that their reason for compiling the information is also in order to promote the POV, but that's rather beside the point.

Just as a FYI, I'm leaving the computer fairly soon in order to spend the Sunday evening doing non-Wikipedia things, and won't be online tomorrow morning so it will be at least some 15 hours before I'm around. Again, it would be better to have this discussion on the article's talk page. Please feel free to quote me there if you wish. --bonadea contributions talk 18:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

My argument is it does not matter if this site has a point of view the link in question goes to a page that has questionably 1 line of POV, their tagline below their logo. At that point your looking for a reason not to like them. additional proof your looking for a reason not to like this like you mentioned the right frame of the website. SAYING: "clarifies the POV very unambiguously." I only see a highlight of numbers. Please explain to me your problem with numbers. Numbers which are referenced and properly cited to legitimate sources (In this case google data and another page that links to a detailed page of the where / how and when those numbers were collected.)

The page offers ZERO POV (outside the tagline in their logo, which I still say is stretching of an excuse) If the boy scouts wrote a page about how to build a camp fire. Would it be inappropriate to post a link to that on a Wikipedia page on campfires just because on the boyscouts website has a POV about gays serving openly in the boyscouts? Or would posting any article from the New York Times be against Wikipedia policies because in every edition of the Times you will find a few editorials expressing a POV.

The fact is the link I posted listed companies who have outsourced jobs from the United States. Yes, it's hosted on a website that (from my count) has 2 POV editorials. But they do not exist on the link in question.

In addition every fact and number on that site is cited and referenced.

The site is even good enough for Major media outlets such as MSNBC and CNN to reference it.

I respectfully believe you need to question your bias on this matter. I suggest restoring the link and putting your objection next to it. Let the people decide.

Thank you.

I think it's a good idea to get more opinions on this, especially if my views are being perceived as biased (I honestly don't believe I am - but seeing one's own bias is notiriously difficult!). For this reason I've asked for input on the link, here. Please feel free to provide input in that discussion. Thank you! --bonadea contributions talk 21:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

why have you blocked my page about callum picjkering — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUNITm (talk • contribs) 12:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I asked for it to be deleted as an attack page. Those are not allowed on Wikipedia. There's more information about this on your talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 12:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

have no idea what your talking about and why you deleted my page .. :\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GUNITm (talk • contribs) 13:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not delete your page - I don't have the tools to delete Wikipedia articles. I asked for it to be deleted, however, and the administrator who did delete the page obviously agreed with me that it was a personal attack against the subject of the article. After that, it looks as if you created the article again, and had it deleted again (I wasn't involved in that and didn't see the last version of the article, but it was obviously not suitable for a Wikipedia article.) Once again, there's been a lot of information posted to your talk page - you should read that, and follow the links. In particular see this note from the administrator who deleted the article (both times). If you want to ask him about it, you can reach him here. --bonadea contributions talk 13:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I also couldn't tag the article, The wateska wonder, as a copyvio because the URL it was copied from has been added to a spam blacklist, so the Twinkle edit failed! I eventually tagged without the http:// part to avoid the filter. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's a way around it, of course. I've just been digging through the Twinkle archives and find that it is a known issue - it's problematic that it doesn't tell the Twinkle user, but it does place a warning on the talk page of the article creator. --bonadea contributions talk 12:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vensatry (talk • contribs) 03:56, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure! --bonadea contributions talk 17:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

{{Jefeperro (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)}} [[Jefeperro (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)]] I wrote the information you are referencing as copyrighted material, If I own the material why am I not allowed to use it?

Replied on your talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 20:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Why have you deleted my article Sir ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absarar (talk • contribs) 11:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 15:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe I didnt know that, despite having worked in the book business (obviously not in publishing). thanks for the correction. What do you think of the pronoun "they"/"their" in place of she/her? Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The great thing about Wikipedia is that you learn a lot from editing it - at least I know that I do! :-) If the remarks on the book's cover were taken from reviews, it's fine to quote these reviews, by the way.

I think singular "they"/"their" is perfectly fine. Thanks for contributing the article! --bonadea contributions talk 07:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

hows Sweden? bye. --Pabloviva22 (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Very windy at the moment :-) Spring is arriving, the snow is melting away (at least where I live - further north they may have to wait another month for that), and the days are now longer than the nights, which is lovely.

Sorry about my mistaken tagging of the article you wrote. I made a too-hasty judgment, but the reviewing administrator was more thorough, so the system obviously works as intended. (All the same, it was a silly mistake of me - my apoogies.) --bonadea contributions talk 08:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably was, but I took it out under 'context' as it didn't really identify its subject. It could actually have been true but as it was unsourced, it had to go somehow. (Some decisions here feel like one's working with mediaeval theology...) Cheers. Peridon (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, you're right - there was no context really, as attacks go it was pretty mild, but it seemed to be just a negative opinion piece about the person. I don't mind if it was deleted under a different rationale, certainly. --bonadea contributions talk 09:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for interest in my article. I added the information u suggested.

I will be thankful if you please help me regarding correcting the name of Walli Tangi Dame which is by mistake written Wali Tangi by some other user.

Thank you.

Zakir Rasheed Kakar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakirchum (talk • contribs) 14:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have seen that you have contested my page and just wanted you to know that this page is being created at the moment snad is work in progress. I have briefly included the things you felt it missed but the page will develop to a high quality page soon. Thanks

-Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 13:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)