User:Velella/Archives/Archive 9
This talk page contents prior to 24th January 2014 have been archived. Please feel free to start new discussions below. Velella Velella Talk 09:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
PaulGNelson
[edit]Thanks for that, I'm going through the references now to see what they actually state because the information they were used to site was slightly incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulGNelson (talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Akidjoh
[edit]Good day Vevella. How to create a page of biography for someone, Example a football player like FISTON ABDUL RAZAK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akidjoh (talk • contribs) 07:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Greg Abbott
[edit]His daughter is adopted according to this BussinessWeek article from Bloomberg and many other news sites. This is important because partisan Truthers are arguing he is faking his need for a wheelchair since his child was born in 1997. Wikipedia should state this clearly, I don't understand why this is questioned but his daughter's birthyear in the same sentence requires no citation?: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-09-19/grit-steeled-by-injury-drives-abbott-bid-for-texas-governor#p1 I changed the summary to "Audrey (adopted)" and this was removed as well, please change this back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.81.55 (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- The trick in Wikipedia is to quote your reference when adding material. This is especially important when adding material to biographies of living people. Please feel free to re-add the material with a robust and reliable reference provided that the information is relevant, appropriate and encyclopaedic. It is often the case that information about children are not themselves intrinsically encyclopaedic if the career of the person in question is not influenced by the presence (or absence) of children. I understand that you understand that it is encyclpaedic so please feel free to re-add the information with the references as in <ref>[ http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-09-19/grit-steeled-by-injury-drives-abbott-bid-for-texas-governor#p1 Grit Drives Abbott to Follow Perry as Texas Governor - News From Bloomberg]</ref> . Velella Velella Talk 18:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Mayo college
[edit]How would you know about mayo college? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.64.178.202 (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- I know nothing about Mayo college but I do know a little about Wikipedia and its rules. Please have a look at WP:PEOPLE to see why names have been deleted. Thanks. Velella Velella Talk 12:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to STiki!
[edit]|
Hello, Velella, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Here are some pages which are a little more fun:
We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Tentinator 07:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
Amelia Does
[edit]Hi there, according to IMDb, Ms. Does was a consulting producer on one of the Lipsett biodocs and would appear to have contributions to make to this article, despite the COI concerns. I'd like to work to see if we can find a way to include a link to her book, in some fashion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have no problems with anyone making informed and referenced contributions but I would draw the line at promoting her own book, no matter how authoritative. That should be for others to do. She is, of course, at liberty to post relevant information on the article talk page and leave it to others to decide what to use and what not to use. Regards Velella Velella Talk 20:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- I understand. Personally, I'm for pending the rules a little, in this case. Please see my latest edit to the article, with a primary ref to her Senses of Cinema article. Can you live with this? Trying to find a secondary ref... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I just found an RS. Please stand by. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- I understand. Personally, I'm for pending the rules a little, in this case. Please see my latest edit to the article, with a primary ref to her Senses of Cinema article. Can you live with this? Trying to find a secondary ref... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Albert Ellis
[edit]Hi Velella,
I added a book to Albert Ellis' list of published works: "Are Capitalism, Objectivism, And Libertarianism Religions? Yes!: Greenspan And Ayn Rand Debunked." You wrote a message saying you removed it because you thought the edit was "not constructive." Could I ask you to elaborate? Thanks in advance, appreciate any feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.244.76 (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- The issue that persuaded me to revert the edit was the change to three referenced instances , altering average to average. This is not what the references say. The edit was therefore in breach of Wikipedia's guidelines. I note that this is not the only occasion when editors have been persuaded to revert unsourced information that you have added to articles. Please always provide a reliable source for any changes of this nature that you make. Velella Velella Talk 23:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, that's odd - I see what you're talking about, but I didn't actually make any changes to the instances of average, at least, not intentionally (I don't even understand what the difference is that the revision page is highlighting? average vs. average? They look exactly the same to me in all 3 instances, I don't see any difference in spelling, capitalization, spacing, punctuation, etc.?) Also, this is the first time I've ever made an edit from this IP, I think I'm showing up as a shared IP that apparently has a history of questionable edits, now that I look at its history. Anyways, do I understand correctly that you have no issue with the additional published work being added (which I referenced via ISBN and can be verified via the Wikipedia book sources page)? If I were to create an account and re-submit the edit from there (taking care to avoid re-creating the strange average differences, to the best of my ability), would that suffice?
- Hi Velella - I've made an account (I'm the one who made the Albert Ellis page changes) as it seems someone else is doing things from this same shared IP (I'm in an office w/ dozens of users), I'm guessing they're the ones who made changes to your comments. I'll go ahead and re-submit my change from this account. Sorry that someone else from this location is giving you problems. Lortho21 (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
stop
[edit]
|
stop |
| i helped to make her page better. stop reporting me P☮ace-♥-33756 (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC) |
- Changing somebody else's User page is blatant vandalism and was reported as such. If you cannot start making a sensible contribution to Wikipedia rather than posting nonsense message to user talk pages, you will find yourself blocked from editing. Velella Velella Talk 10:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
deleted external links
[edit]Dear Velella, today you deleted several links I added to pages of several artists. The links I added connect to a website which shows objects of these artists including art, letters, pictures etc. As most of these objects cannot be found anywhere else in the internet I think these links are a valuable contribution to the articles on the artists. Moreover, the website is created by the German National Library which I think can be considered as a trusted source. I understand that linking to the start page of the website can be considered as advertisement. Therefore, I suggest to add the links again but only to the pages of the artists and not to the start page. Kiebitz13 (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- I understand your motivation here, but the editing practice of simply adding links from the same site to many different articles always appears as link spamming, a editing practice strongly deprecated in Wikipedia. It would be mush better, if this archive contains valuable information, to use it to insert in-line references to support material already in the article or additional material that you may be able to add. External links are always rather suspect and always at risk of deletion whereas relevant and appropriate in-line citations are always most welcome. I hope that this helps. Regards Velella Velella Talk 15:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
24th November contribution
[edit]hey Velella you have removed my adjustment on wikipedia (24 november) and I hope you get this :) I added that page because I accidentally promised a friend of mine who is unfortunately very sick that I would get her name on the internet and make her "famous" so the only thing I could think of was Wikipedia. To put it briefly my adjustment isn't really "scientific" but I really hope that you could leave it there so that I could keep my promise. I'm sorry for disturbing you!
PS: I hope my English wasn't to bad!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:398E:9400:D9DD:8344:3313:4B39 (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have made no changes to any articles edited from your IP address. Please provide some more information about the article and I will try and make a fuller response. Thanks Velella Velella Talk 18:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Thierry Henry Handball
[edit]Hi, You deleted my addition on the Thierry Henry handball regarding a banner? I was at that match and saw the banner, I probably have a picture of it somewhere but outside of that I don't know what else you want me to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.8.87 (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Any potentially contentious statement must be supported by a reputable and robust reference such as a national Newspaper, BBC or similar. I am sure that there should be a reference to the banner and if you can find the reference, then please feel free to replace the statement. I will leave it to others to decide whether, even with a reference, it is encyclopaedic. Regards Velella Velella Talk 20:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
How is the statement contentious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.8.87 (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Q-go
[edit]Hi. You nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Q-go (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) last year. I since found some sources and have now reinstated the article (rather than taking it to DRV). You may wish to comment at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#Template:Olddelccc. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 16:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Query
[edit]Hi, why did you give this IP a second "final warning"? Was it a Huggle malfunction or something? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- I suspect a Huggle artefact. This was an IP making very frequent vandal edits to one article. When I reverted, Huggle saw the last warning as #3 and issued a #4. In the meantime further vandalism had occurred but due to my slow connection my #4 warning hadn't arrived and Huggle issued another #4 warning. A few seconds later my warning arrived and we end up with duplicate warnings. I guess just a quirk of huggle, variable speed networks and a busy little vandal - who has now been blocked. Regards Velella Velella Talk 18:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Catholic Legal Immigration Network
[edit]Hi Velella, We would like to restore the edits recently made (1/30/2014) to our organization's page at CLINIC(ie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Legal_Immigration_Network?diff=593166407). Our history, board members and programs were outdated but will be up-do-date once the edits are reinstated. Please let us know if there is anything we should do to verify that the changes made are accurate. Many thanks, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC)
- Two important issues. First it is important that if you are editing on behalf of the organisation then this should be openly stated. It is far better if you get a username and declare your interest on your user page. Editing without declaring your interest is considered to pose a risk of conflict of interest. Secondly, to avoid having your edits reverted, please always provide an edit summary identifying what you are doing and why you are doing it. If you are removing referenced material, this is especially important and it is important to provide good references for the new material that you add. Regards Velella Velella Talk 20:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Sudirman
[edit]As I recall, I corrected the spelling of a couple of words. Did I do it incorrectly? And sorry, I'm at work, so I don't recall my login and password. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.64.209.102 (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- You weren't signed in so I was able to track the edit. My message was probably a little more terse than intended - it was generated by a programme that delivers automated responses when edits appear to be non-constructive. In this case you changed the spellings of two words in an article written in British English to American spellings. In Wikipedia, either dialect may be used but not interchangeably within an article. Apologies for the tone of the message. Velella Velella Talk 23:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
codeine
[edit]Hi Velella, I don't know how to add a citation, I just felt it should be on there. If you want to tell me how to do it, I'll do it. Failing that, there are many, many respectable sources on the internet. If you look up codeine along with Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction on Google you will see it is a recognized problem. It even appears in the warnings section in packets of co-codamol bought over the counter. It's an often overlooked problem, which is why I felt it should be in there. Apparently even some doctors don't know of it, although mines did. Let me know what you want to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.241.177 (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Stepan Chapman
[edit]I knew Stepan personally. I was informed of his death by his widow, Kia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.95.55 (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- You may well be right, but until there is a reputable and reliable source that reports the fact, Wikipedia cannot use it. Sorry. Velella Velella Talk 20:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Urban Agriculture page question
[edit]Hello! I see you removed my addition. I am confused by your reason as there is an identical quote without attribution (just ref link) right after what I added. I was simply following that example. Further, the quote was the opinion of an academic professional. I'm new to Wiki so any input would be very much appreciated! Andy Sherman (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. The quote you used was, I assume, made by an individual but in the article, but no individual was attributed to the quote. There is also a potential for copyright violation when taking text straight from a web-site or other source. Please see WP:COPYVIO for further information. I agree that there was another similar quote which I hope I have now corrected, but I will check. The final issue concerns Wikipedia as a world-wide on-line encyclopaedia. When a comment is made that espouses one particular view - in the case promoting New York - it is prudent to look around for a balancing view rather them simply reporting a partisan view. Wikipedia tends to have an unintentional biased towards the US view of life simply because so many Americans contribute and in cases like this where the quote very strongly promotes an American view, obtaining a balancing view becomes even more important. Regards Velella Velella Talk 20:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Steve McQueen Le Mans movie
[edit]The article on Steve McQueen mentions his movie Le Mans and makes it appear as a failure yet the Wiki article on the movie praises the movie as a very true representation of motorsports in that era. While the usual movie critics may have panned the film motorsport fans and motorsport journalists still regard the movie very highly. I think there should be some line to denote the success the movie had with motorsport fraternity. David A. Warr, St. George's, Newfoundland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.88.154 (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- You are probably right, but what it needs is a reliable source to support an appropriate statement. Without a source is appears to be a personal opinion which is not permitted in Wikipedia. Please see WP:NPOV. Regards Velella Velella Talk 09:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
A lot of what appears in Wikipedia is someone's opinion. There are any number of motorsports magazines that praise the movie. Similarly any movie critics's review is in fact an opinion. A person can either agree or disagree with the critics. I watch a lot of four star movies that are horrible and some movies with two stars that should have three at least. Also someone has to write the articles and must be giving their opinion on things even if it is only a matter of what is added or left out. There must be opinion or all Wikipedia will have is a collection of lists and charts. 142.162.88.154 (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC) David A. Warr, st. George's, Newfoundland
Menudo (soup)
[edit]The word "traditional" in the article Menudo (soup) makes it sound as if the soup is good. It is misleading, because the soup is very, very terrible.--75.36.38.134 (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that that is to your opinion. However, personal opinions are not part of Wikipedia unless published by a reputable source which can be quoted. Secondly, traditional" does not necessarily mean "good". Velella Velella Talk 10:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Copy Editing
[edit]Dear Velella,
Thanks for cooperating! :) Almost everyone who reverts my edits ignores my questions about their reversion. If my edits made nonsense of the articles, then I must be hallucinating: they seem clearer. All my recent edits have been reverted and several messages have appeared on my talk page, making me wonder whether you have asked for help in making your point; this measure would seem crude and overbearing. Regardless of psychology, below is my reply:
-Passive voice sentences of the form "X [be] [verb] by Y" can be more concisely written in the form "Y [verb] X".
-Others' liking my copy edits refers to others' having thanked me for them on Wikipedia, many specialized wikis, technical writing, essays, and several fictional works. I when evaluating my editing disregard unexplained reversions because the reverting editor may have had insufficient reason; sometimes reversions' explanations cite such minor errors that fixing them would have been more considerate and efficacious than reverting my painstaking and otherwise helpful copy edit. I accept that some people simply dislike my copy editing, have 'pet' pages whereover they wish to dominate, or see only one way to express themselves: in my years of copy-editing I have seen much.
If to age is to callous over one's sympathy, then I shall remain a I child forever. (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
PS Are you a moderator? You write like one.
- It is disingenuous of you to suggest that I have been canvassing other editors. I have not. It is also the case that I have no "pet" articles that I might wish " to dominate". I suggest that instead of spraying unfounded comments around that you re-examine the impact of your own editing practices and perhaps consider why some many examples of your copy-editing are reverted. Velella Velella Talk 22:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, wow, I meant not to offend you. :( I while copy-editing so often see my authors' personal feelings affect their judgment (e.g., one author told me that however much he likes my writing, he hates all edits to his work and after thirty years still resents his professor's moving a comma in his thesis) that I wanted to know whether personal feelings would prevent the reasonable conversation whereby I from reverting editors learn how to improve my work.
I missed your Feb. 14 message because it is not on my talk page and therefore caused no red notification number to appear: in Homer's immortal words, D'Oh! >_< Nimbus227 has explained much to me--even that I am not copy-editing but stylistically rewriting.
If to age is to callous over one's sympathy, then I shall remain a I child forever. (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Ouch. :( If you could not understand what I meant, then you could have just said so without hurtfully calling my writing not English. Let's not be mean. :)
I missed your previous message and now your most recent one because I saw no red notification because you didn't reply on my talk page. I also learned a lot about editing from Nimbus227. I want to know what you don't like about my writing style.
Duxwing (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Velella,
I hope to see your reply soon! :) Also, having never greatly collaborated with other Wikipedians before this incident, I read some articles and essays about Wikipedian collaboration: one essay advised against something called a "unilateral" "No-Edit order," which you gave me on my talk page. I also read Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution guidelines, which state that such requests for blocking as the one you threatened to make here must follow several other dispute resolution steps. When I saw the threat and remembered the no-edit order, I feared that any edit could lead to my blocking; I therefore entirely stopped editing and started researching and building consensus. I have learned that these no-edit orders and threats of blocking are acceptable for maintaining peace and achieve consensus: please help create that peace and consensus by telling me what is wrong with my copy-editing.
Further, I feel intimidated by your long silence, seemingly threatening and ominous tone, and sarcastic dismissal of my request for help, and our tremendously disparate degrees of collaborative and Wikipedian experience; I want work together to discuss this problem without my feeling intimidated. Finally, not knowing why you so dislike my editing as to threaten calling the administrators exerts an evident chilling effect on my editing and leaves me feeling like I have been effectively banished from one of my favorite activities. I want to edit well enough not to worry about causing an uproar every time I click "Submit," and by this problem's nature only you and the other reverting editors can detailedly tell me how. Please help. :)
Duxwing (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
please ?
[edit]What I did wrong ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:1980:532:99E7:2D09:B1C:6D74 (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Absolutely nothing - apologies for the warning. You edited a page that was also being vandalised at the same time. Huggle awarded the warning to the wrong editor, probably because my mouse click was just too slow. You may want to restore your comment as it probably got erased in the edit conflict . Sorry Velella Velella Talk 16:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Waterford Alumni
[edit]Hi Velella, please desist from your wholesale deletion of the Waterford Kamhlaba Alumni list. Several of the people you deleted from the article, for example Botswana's president Ian Khama are significant individuals and should be listed here. While I agree the list is too long, it is not helpful to erase all the names; rather, a selective revision would be preferable. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.215.14.238 (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- If the people are notable, then please link them to their respective Wikipedia articles. Alternatively please provide references to support unlinked names. Wikipedia has many list of wholly fictitious names which is not helpful to an encyclopaedia. Please see WP:PEOPLE for further guidance. Thank you Velella Velella Talk 09:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
sixth army removed edit
[edit]I was wondering why you removed the edit from the sixth army? The edit was not something that was new, rather it was first removed by another anonymous user a few days ago. The statement in question is a statement of fact, given that there exists detailed records of the war crimes committed by the 6th army in Russia and eastern Europe. The original lede did not mention this rather important tidbit of history at all. I find that most unfortunate since Cold War era animosity between the West and the East prevented western historians from appreciating or even acknowledging the scope and extent of Wehrmacht war crimes against the Soviet Union. Just about every work of popular culture dealing with Stalingrad and the 6th army omits mention of of these acts.
Secondly, my understanding was the citations in the lede were a no-no, because the lede is meant to be a summary of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.251.229 (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- I understand where you are coming from. A careful reading of the article provides ample evidence of war crimes but not "..throughout its existence from top to bottom.." - in my opinion. I would suggest a more considered addition which accurately reflects the contents of the article. I do agree that references are not required here, provided that the content of the article supports the opening contentions. The message on your talk page should, perhaps, have been clearer. Regards Velella Velella Talk 22:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Re Skin Edit
[edit]Hi Velella
This IP is from a school ..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.178.131.181 (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hopefully then this can be a lesson in becoming aware that actions have consequences - in this case very mild actions have very mild consequences. Than you Velella Velella Talk 22:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
You have interesting input, Velella
[edit]I appreciate your adjustment, although I do not agree with it. Never have I heard the term, "topped up" used in America. I don't know precisely where you're from, but in my little experience as an American, "topped off" is the proper American usage.
I may be mistaken and be editing a British English article; in which case I'll kindly retract my offenses.
Let me know what you think, and your sources. Thank you!
Blaykers 00:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnm144 (talk • contribs)
- It is certainly the correct term in British use and I believe British commonwealth use. "Topping off" is used occasionally and has the specific meaning of "adding the final touch". Thus we have "topping off" ceremonies when completing large buildings - which also seems to be a USA usage. Similarly a Christmas tree may be "topped off with a star". However for all contexts where a level is being restored to its previous state such as topping up a swimming pool, topping up a sand filter, topping up somebody else's bottle gin with water to hide that fact that you have helped yourself to a generous slug, all of these would always be "topping up". A definition here if there is any doubt! Velella Velella Talk 17:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
You just reverted an edit I did with the following excuse. " Your recent edit to the page Tropical year appears to have added incorrect information, so I removed it for now"
As someone who claims you have worked in earth sciences you should be aware that interglacial periods usually last for about 15,000 years. We've had 12.000 since the last de-glaciation. So my comment that there will likely be another in next 10,000 years hardly seems "incorrect". Perhaps you should inform yourself before reverting edits of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.65.5.87 (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have never made any claims about earth sciences, but I do know a little about probability theory...... and other editors appear to have agreed with me. Velella Velella Talk 22:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Velella. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Run's House, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Velella Velella Talk 11:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Vanessa said she graduated on her shows 'Run's House' and 'Daddy's Girls'. Instead of just reverting,did you research for a source ? This is a collaborative effort right ? Stop reverting and actually EDIT. I hope you arent one of those who just reverts to get their count up. If you look at the edit history there was alot of details WITH SOURCES but people have come through and butchered the article. I am readding my edit. 69.143.113.189 (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I looked and found plenty of gossip sites and blogs but not a single reputable site that I could use. If you can find a reputable and reliable site that isn't show-biz gossip or similar, please feel free to add it. Velella Velella Talk 15:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Helen Mason (endocrinologist) for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Helen Mason (endocrinologist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Mason (endocrinologist) 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. ...William 18:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Jung-Koch-Quentell
[edit]Evening,
I would like to ask why you have decided that the Jung-Koch-Quentell Page has to be deleted as this is a work in progress.
He was and still is a very highly thought after Illustrator of Botany and Zoology prints. The page is only linked to The website it is the only company in the UK that sells his work.... Please respond before the page is closed.
- For a Wikpedia page to exist it has to be notable . To be notable requires reliable and independent sources. This article appears to me to be simply advertising. It is up to an administrator to agree or disagree with my view. You may make comments on the article talk page to help the administrator make his/her decision if you wish. Velella Velella Talk 20:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- I should also add that he looks as though he/ she might be a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article, but it would need to be properly researched and not based on the idea of selling his/her art-work via an internet shop. Why not write a proper, well sourced, article in your sand-box and then use that to form the basis of a proper article ? Regards Velella Velella Talk 20:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Oops!
[edit]Made me giggle. CIreland (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry about that - I reverted it as quickly as my connection would allow. Comes of Twinkling late at night with a wee dram in my left hand ! Velella Velella Talk 23:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
That Guy
[edit]About the VX Nerve Agent Sadly i have no sources as it comes from i'd as about 3/10's of the way into the book and is a brief section, but i'm currently reading through the novel and read the Wiki entry and it seemed to match up to what was described., i can happily see if i can find a scanned page if need be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.178.235 (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- To be included, text must have a reliable source and it must be encyclopaedic. In this case you can probably quote the source which is the book you are reading, so that shouldn't be a problem. However, to be encyclopaedic you need to demonstrate that the author had VX in mind when he wrote RVX - that would require an independent source - and that the inclusion in this book was sufficiently important to justify inclusion in the article. Nerve agents, and VX itself, are mentioned in many thousands of books of many different genres and there would need to be a powerful justification for singling out one book where the reference is tangential at best. Velella Velella Talk 23:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
ComicBase
[edit]Regarding the change I made, the source for the new number (560 000) is the same page that was referenced already (note 2) tv — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.115.36 (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I have reverted to your version. An edit summary along the lines of "updated to show numbers in reference" would have helped a great deal. When I looked at the article, I couldn't see that it satisfied Wikipedia notability guidelines so I have marked it for potential deletion as being largely unreferenced. The addition of robust and reliable independent references would help preserve the article. Velella Velella Talk 13:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Vaella,
Updated the article to bring it up to date, particularly in light of the mobile feature adds in ComicBase 2015. -Pete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbickford (talk • contribs) 21:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
chain reaction page
[edit]hello velella,
no offence to you or your moderation, but i believe my information about the chain reaction or my example of a chain reaction was valid and great information that brought more understanding to the page and section. i believe i had provided a reliable source and if it must be changed it deserves to be moved to another section at the least.
if i did indeed violate the wikipedia policy, we have no problems with your action, rules, and wikipedia policy.
thank you for reconsidering. Nathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.79.147 (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Whatever you or may not think, nathanscomputerknowledge.com is neither a reliable nor acceptable source for any wikipedia content. Please do not add any further text using this site as a source. Thank you. Velella Velella Talk 19:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The Hooping Life - updating information.
[edit]Hey Velella,
Earlier I made some edits to the page on the documentary The Hooping Life to correct an incorrect release date, and include the film's current synopsis. I'm very new at this, so I understand that I must have done something wrong as it was reverted to the older, incorrect page. I went back and updated again, and added citations for IMDB (which correctly shows the film's 2014 release date as 2014) and added other articles to establish that the film is being released and actively reviewed by the entertainment press. If I've missed something again, please let me know and I'll correct it. Also, the box indicating that there might be a copyright infringement issue I'm wondering about. I'm not sure what the infringement is referring to, or what references need to be provided to prove that it's not?
Thanks! -David
- The reason that I decided to revert was the change that you made to the template at the top of the article which indicates when certain issues were raised with the article. In this case it indicated that there were concerns with notability and was dated March 2014. You changed it to April 2014 which was an impossibility as we are still in March - hence the revert. However, almost nothing of the article has any references and the few references that there are are to video trailers and the like. For example the first two sentences are
.Hooping is an art, a dance, a fitness regime, and a spiritual practice. It is one of the hottest trends, catching on with the likes of First Lady Michelle Obama, Beyonce, and Marisa Tomei. Hooping is featured in music videos for Justin Timberlake, Fergie, and P!NK and ads for Coca-Cola and Targe
I see nothing to confirm that it is any of those things, that any of those people have participated, that any of those videos have featured it. At present the article is headed towards deletion unless somebody comes up with some robust and reliable sources for all these and many other assertions. Hope that that helps. Regards Velella Velella Talk 21:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Got it. Definitely user error about changing the date in that template, now I see that that date is unrelated to the film's release date in the page code. I actually agree that deletion is the best remedy for this page. Is that something I can do, or do you have to initiate that? Thanks! DavidBigTime (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
INSTICC
[edit]Thanks for commenting on INSTICC page. It seems that you have open questions as to what INSTICC is, does or stands for, as well as its credibility, which we would be happy to fully clarify. However, we are not sure what's the best method to do so. Please advise. --Jfilipe (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- What is required is the presence or robust and reliable references to support the various and many claims made in the article. Please see WP:NOTABILITY for more guidance. Essentially the references need to be publications of high regard providing clear confirmation about the points being made so that any reader can satisfy themselves that the organisation is what it claims to be. Hope that that helps. Velella Velella Talk 22:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Do not appreciate you removing all of my additions without sending me a message with explanations on my "Talk"
[edit]Hi,
I have added minor additions to two pages on Wikipedia. This is not commercial spam as you named it. The picture was actually created by the company and is unique. It provides great visual explanation on how the process is actually done. SIBROM is the newest water treatment technology based on RO, which is not mentioned anywhere in the article. I have reverted everything back. If I am doing something incorrectly, please advise where am I mistaken or how to proceed.
Thanks Gosswiki (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Gosswiki
- All your edits seem intent on promoting one particular company and its products. This editing behaviour is regarded as link-spamming on Wikipedia and your edits have been reverted accordingly. Persisting in editing in this way can result in your account being blocked from editing and the web-site being promoted may be blacklisted. For the record, I did leave a template message on your talk page in addition to the two previous messages which also expressed concern about the inappropriate addition of links to pages. Velella Velella Talk 17:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Age of Consent Article
[edit]Seemingly, you undid the edits I had done to a small section so as to make it intelligible (at least, according to what I was able to understand from the gibberish that was there originally). Further, you've apparently deemed such edits not to be "constructive". I wonder how constructive you think your actions are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.255.116.2 (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- The phrase ".. past the 18th century" is not a usual English construction in British English - and the article was about a European topic. Velella Velella Talk 00:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
page: Christian Gerber
[edit]The Warning that you have reactived on the site are not true anymore, because the issues were addressed. Thank you for correcting your entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.155.172.223 (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have looked again at the article and I see no reason to remove the flags at present. To be honest, I am not convinced that Mr Gerber is notable in Wikipedia terms and unless the article is significantly improved, it may be a candidate for potential deletion. Velella Velella Talk 16:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The flags were made before large revision of the article and are not correct anymore.
1) it has many citations to established sources
2) the article is written very neutrally, if you don't agree please point out which sentence is not "neutral" in your opinion
3) it has several inline citations
4) it has articles who are linked to it and is not an orphan
5) it is not written in an subject manner, but just based on facts.
Please remove your incorrect flags or specifically comment on what you would suggest.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.195.221.165 (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Reverted change on Water Pollution article
[edit]I saw that you reverted my edit of the Water Pollution page and cited that "the USA ref is about polluting load which doesn't equate to 'most polluted'. Dilution and flow rate are both very significant". Thanks for the explanation, but what specifically would be an appropriate formula for measuring "most polluted" waterways, and where could I find the authoritative information? You seem to have deep knowledge on the topic, so it would be great if you could create a more authoritative list in Water Pollution or point me in the right direction.
Mrengy (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Most polluted" is always extremely difficult to define or agree upon. It is, for example, very difficult to compare a river full of domestic sewage that smells and is full of "sewage fungus" with another that has microgramme per litre concentrations of lead but which looks and smells like a pristine stream. Both are seriously polluted and both will exert a very major adverse impact on the lotic fauna and flora. It may be possible to list those rivers carrying the greatest load - as in tonnes per day - of specified pollutants or having the greatest concentration - as in mg/l - of specified pollutants, but the first approach will always list the major rivers of the world since they have the greatest flow and thus the greatest load of pollutants. Listing by greatest concentration will tend to produce a list of very small rivers which receive a seriously polluting load. Neither approach is, I suspect, what you had in mind. There are also some rivers which have in the past received episodic severe pollution from spillages or criminal acts. Both the Rhine and the Danube have suffered in this way yet at other times, the water quality of these rivers is reasonably good. One approach might be to list those rivers in the worst quality class as listed by the appropriate local regulatory organisation. In this scenario you might have a list of "Rivers having the worst pollution categorization by Country". Regrettably, many of the countries where pollution is most common also have weak or non-existent regulatory organisations which do not publish appropriate information. I can only conclude therefore that making a list of "most polluted" anything is always going to be fraught with many difficulties. Velella Velella Talk 19:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Armor of God
[edit]Hi Velella, I did not edit Armor of God. I have not, to date, contributed work to wikipedia, and I'm a bit concerned that it appears that I have. - Isaac — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.86.30.58 (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Somebody registered at your IP address has certainly made two recent unconstructive edits to Armor of God. Without knowing how your ISP assigns addresses I can't say who in particular made the edits. To avoid similar issues in future, it would be probably be worth registering a user-name on Wikipedia. Regards Velella Velella Talk 22:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Birth date of Friedrich I, Count of Berg-Altena
[edit]I noted a discrepancy between your entry, showing death date of 1169 for Friedrich I (on entry for his father Eberhard IV), and primary Wikipedia entry for Friedrich I (himself) which gives death date as 1198. Wikipedia also shows Friedrich I with a son (Adolf I) born c.1194, which if true, makes 1198 much more likely than 1169. djhouck@cox.net
You may have been right as the article originally stood. But the facts are differently explained now. Hope that clears up the misunderstanding, if there was one. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Velella, Sometimes Ipse dixit isn't enough.
- While I am sure this was an unintended consequence or By-product, you helped make the article better. Best regards.
A Dobos torte for you!
[edit].jpg)
|
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. |
7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
deleting anecdotes on chloramphenicol ?
[edit]Hi.
the anecdotes on chloramphenicol were added as i was recommended by a doctor to use it to prevent infection and reduce scarring of a wound.
I'm under the impression it is effective for this purpose, but is not well known outside medical circles.
A brief search of research articles didn't directly discuss it, so anecdotes were the best evidence found.
Were the anecdotes deleted due to them not meeting wiki's verification standards?
Rollmop (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. Anecdotes are not accepted in Wikipedia. Indeed primary sources are also frowned on with secondary and tertiary sources which are authoritative and reliable are usually needed. This means that a scientific paper linking Chloramphenicol to treatment of scarring would not usually be accepted but a review paper in a reputable peer reviewed journal bringing together the medical literature on the topic would be considered a good source Velella Velella Talk 21:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Health risks from drinking demineralised water?
[edit]I started a discussion on the matter on the article talk page. I was extremely surprised to see no prior discussion there. However, I do agree with your concerns.
I noticied that you warned this user against vandalism, but user resume vandalism and finally warned upto final warning. I have reported this user @ WP:AIV. A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 19:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I see that Diannaa has now blocked the IP. Regards Velella Velella Talk 19:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
| Good catch on that political spam and all your reverts :) §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC) |
DABMENTION
[edit]In principle, I'd be inclined to agree with you — since the purpose of a dab page is to help direct people to articles that have naming conflicts because they could potentially qualify for the same article title, and not to serve as an index for every article on Wikipedia that merely happens to contain a particular string of words, there's not a lot of value in adding entries that unquestionably fail our notability rules just because their name is present in another article. It can be tricky territory trying to prejudge the notability or non-notability of someone who might possibly pass our notability rules, however, so I think that part's a harder call. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Inquiry
[edit]HI
you have removed my my addition in sunset "gallery" without any comment or explanation about it.
Could you please check that for me to get understanding so can help me to improve performance. Thank you for your precious help. --محمد بوعلام عصامي (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Please see this guidance which clearly states that galleries should only be used to illustrate issues not covered elsewhere in the article. The gallery of images at Sunset provided no new understanding. The editor prior to your edit had also removed the gallery but you re-instated it. I was simply putting back the article to its condition as determined by policy. Velella Velella Talk 08:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Avicenna
[edit]hi.i dont understand why you insist on your mistake while you can see avicenna died in hamedan and buried there,please correct that if you care — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.245.85.124 (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- You honestly believe that a comment of " as we know this movie doesn't show all the reality of his life an death'" is a well formed and sourced Wikipedia entry ? Velella Velella Talk 21:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
avicenna
[edit]so you want to correct it or you want to play with me in what is well formed?!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tohidsd (talk • contribs) 21:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Christian Taylor
[edit]Hello, I was simply trying to update a new personal best on Christian Taylor's wiki page for the 400m dash — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.62.211 (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Your edit was
. Not sure how that was supposed to update an athlete's most recent performance ? Velella Velella Talk 21:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)<ref>45</ref><ref><ref><ref><ref><ref><ref></ref></ref></ref></ref></ref></ref>.17
Talkback
[edit]
Message added 05:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
NorthAmerica1000 05:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you...
[edit]...for your email. It is nice to know that someone appreciates what I was trying to do, to balance against another editor who, in my opinion, has been most unhelpful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Re: Article "Krishna"
[edit]Hello Velella.
I did not make any change to the article "Krishna". This is the first time I heard of that term. Somehow my IP address was listed after whomever made the change to the article.
Thank you. Take Care, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolatecake300 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not quite true. Since I left no message on your talk page, the only rational conclusion is that you were editing without being signed on from IP address 2620:117:C080:520:1A03:73FF:FE0A:7671. My message was left at User talk:2620:117:C080:520:1A03:73FF:FE0A:7671. Creating a username to dispute a properly left talk page message is not generally considered to be constructive editing. Velella Velella Talk 22:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
External Link
[edit]Hello, I'm Velella. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page Impatiens glandulifera, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Velella Velella Talk 16:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Valella,
Thanks for the above. What do you mean when you say inappropriate? I added links to pages which contain further information, exactly relating to the article and nothing else. I'm fairly new to this so I would appreciate some insight.
Best, P — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaddyPassionDigital (talk • contribs) 16:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Two reasons. Firstly the site that you have quoted here and in several other articles is a commercial site and there is no evidence that it is either authoritative, reliable or correct. Neither does the link add any significant information to that already contained in the article. Secondly your pattern of editing in promoting this site across several articles is regarded as link-spamming on Wikipedia and can lead to the promoted site being blacklisted. Velella Velella Talk 16:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Robert Harrill
[edit]Hi Valella, Thanks for notifying me that my link was removed. I understand why you removed the link but the content was and is valid. You can find out more about it on www.bigdawgproductions.org (which I thought was my citation but I suppose I did that wrong). Please let me know when the information about the play can be put back up on the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.31.193.130 (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Airplane Mode
[edit]It wasn't a test. I added some good content regarding the state of regulations in the US and Canada with references... are the changes going to be approved? I admit I did add the bit about Sophia hoping she would get to see it but the rest was legit. Please review again (and delete the bit for Sophia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.82.105 (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- I you would like to re-add properly sourced material without any spurious content, please feel free to do so. Velella Velella Talk 08:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Breatharianism
[edit]Book Source is noted (a rather well-known book) Paramahansa Yogananda, in his "Autobiography of a Yogi" (published by Self-Realization Fellowship), reports that he met Therese Neumann and that from 1923 until her death in 1962, she consumed no food other than The Holy Eucharist, and claimed to have drunk no water from 1926 until her death. It is noted that on July 1927 a medical doctor and four Franciscan nurses kept a watch on her 24 hours a day for a two-week period. They confirmed that she had consumed nothing except for one consecrated sacred Host a day, and had suffered no ill effects, loss of weight, or dehydration. Yogananda also reports meeting Giri Bala when she was 68. At that time she had not eaten nor taken fluids for over 56 years and existed purely on Light.
B) below on Inedia page, under Hinduism is Therese Neumann -- yet, she was not Hindu but a Catholic (Christian) Mystic. Perhaps this could be moved to the Christian Section. There is an article on Wikipedia on her and perhaps this could be included: Paramahansa Yogananda, in his "Autobiography of a Yogi" (published by Self-Realization Fellowship), reports that he met Therese Neumann and that from 1923 until her death in 1962, she consumed no food other than The Holy Eucharist, and claimed to have drunk no water from 1926 until her death. It is noted that on July 1927 a medical doctor and four Franciscan nurses kept a watch on her 24 hours a day for a two-week period. They confirmed that she had consumed nothing except for one consecrated sacred Host a day, and had suffered no ill effects, loss of weight, or dehydration.
Autobiography of a Yogi is an autobiography of Paramahansa Yogananda (January 5, 1893–March 7, 1952) first published in 1946.
- You are free to add whatever material that seems appropriate to any article provided that it is relevant and properly sourced. The issue with this edit was that although a document was quoted (the lack of proper referencing templates is not a significant issue) the text added was not clear as to what was a quotation from the book, what was an opinion of the author of the book, what was the opinion of the person adding the text to Wikipedia or what was text sourced from elsewhere. For example, who can provide evidence of the words of the Doctor and the Franciscan Nuns? Is this a quote from the book? Where these are quotations they need to be marked as such and where they are synopses or précis of text then they need to be qualified with words such as "Mr X claimed that....." or "Y asserted that...." Velella Velella Talk 11:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Cathedral
[edit]I am no expert in the field of Cathedrals , but I do note your interest and expertise in steering significant improvements to the article. From my very tangential knowledge, I was slightly surprised to note that there was no reference to the three volumes of "Winkles Cathedral". I see that Henry Winkles has an article and I would acknowledge that inclusion of theses volumes as a ref or as further reading might seem to impose a British bias; but I thought I would pose the question to an editor who knew what they were talking about. Regards Velella Velella Talk 09:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- many thanks for the link, and these do indeed contain much useful material. Though I suspect perhaps more useful for the article Architecture of the medieval cathedrals of England than this one. The material that I am adding to the Cathededral article currently is aimed to fill in what I see as a gap in content in respect of the historical development of cathedrals as religious institutions, rather than their architectural and stylistic developmement. But if you know of more general historical studies of cathedrals - especially any covering the centuries before and since the high medieaval period _ I would be very grateful. TomHennell (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
A bowl of strawberries for you!
[edit]
|
I'm working on a CCI, and I keep seeing your name as someone who has already addressed some of the issues. Thanks S Philbrick(Talk) 15:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) |
HI VELELLA JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT YOUR REVERT OF MY CONTRIBUTION WAS COMPLETE BALONEY I TOTALLY DID RESEARCH AND I MEAN JESUS IT TOTALLY IS THAT ONE FUTURAMA BUILDING PLESE REVERT BACK IT'S NOT FAIR
[edit]- If you have totally done your research, it should be easy to quote the appropriate reference to justify the edit. Simple. Velella Velella Talk 23:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Or, how about, stop being a jerk? That's completely ridiculous. Wikipedia is SO pro-censoring. Unbelieveable. Have fun working for Stalin McHitler at Wikipedia. How much they paying you for censor people?
- That is an odd reply. If you did research, then you have a third-party reliable source to show your claim to be true. If you provide that source, it would resolve the issue. On the other-hand, if your claim wasn't actually researched and there is no actual source, then the content should not be restored. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
self revert
[edit]Sorry, hit wrong button at first - reverted myself on the talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not a problem - and thanks for joining in - I was sound asleep by then ! Regards Velella Velella Talk 08:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Photos arranged as galleries
[edit]Hi Vellela. I share your concern about editor 64.4.93.100 and his mass deletion policy (he’s been blocked 72 hours for 3RR). You’ve been at Wiki a long time and can no doubt answer my question concerning WP:NOT and the statement at Wikipedia:NOTGALLERY: "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files." Yesterday, 64.4.93.100 deleted all pertinent photos arranged in a section headed “Gallery” from an article and declared: "Galleries do not belong on Wikipedia WP:NOT they go on Commons instead." This is illogical because 1) all pertinent photos in an article originate chiefly from Commons, and 2) it would mean that all valuable photos arranged row-like in Wiki articles should be deleted and transferred back to Commons. At present, there are many articles in which rows of photos confined to a specific section rather than dispersed throughout the text exist at Wiki. My question is simple: would you consider as I do that 64.4.93.100 has interpreted WP:NOTGALLERY incorrectly or not? Many thanks in advance for your reply. --Jumbolino (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- I tend to look at the words of the guidance and try and understand the meaning intended when the policy was written. Interestingly what Wikipedia says about policy statements are that they are "...a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." This implies some latitude, but perhaps not much. With regard to images it states "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of ..... photographs or media files with no accompanying text.". This is taken by some to mean that there can be no galleries. I personally think that is unhelpful since it is sometimes difficult to include all relevant images within the body of the text. An article describing a butterfly may have only a few sentences of text but may need to illustrate the food plant, eggs, caterpillars, chrysalis, adult with wings open, the under-wing and possibly the difference between male and female. If a good image of the adult was in the infobox, then I might expect to see most of the rest in a gallery. The text would have a brief description of the life-stages so that each image would have relevant text in the article and everything would be fully compliant with policy. I do however tend to remove images that seem to add little or have no accompanying text or are poor duplicates of existing images but , personally, I would rarely delete a complete gallery unless it was obviousl;y superfluous - but that is my personal view - others may be more draconian and may be equally right. However, I do have a strong aversion to editors who pick up on one or two policies and the proceed to wield them like the sword of Damocles through many articles without any consideration for the value of the content, how it links to text or whether there may be a better way or organising the material. I personally regard it as a form of unthinking vandalism.
- I'm not sure whether that little diatribe helps, but it made me feel better ! Velella Velella Talk 22:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my question with such thoroughness. I fully agree with you, especially the phrase, "without any consideration for the value of the content, how it links to text or whether there may be a better way of organising the material." You've identified the main reason why 64.4.93.100 has received a lot of pushback from fellow editors. The photos in question are all captioned, all relevant. If necessary, I'll disperse them throughout the text in due course. In the meantime, you've made us both feel better. Again, thanks. --Jumbolino (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Nat'l Report edit
[edit]Hi Vellela. I thought it was pretty clear that I merely listified the content on National Report, without actually removing anything. I'm sure you had a sensor of some sort that was triggered, as wholesale removal of content is rightfully considered vandalism. Not sure why WP suggested the material was removed; all I did was add a series of asterisks and change capitalizations. I'll make sure to tag the listification in the future! Thechuck (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry about that . It looks like a combination of Huggle working too fast and my brain working too slow. Regards Velella Velella Talk 20:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
1 World Music Festival
[edit]It looks as though the discussion about 1 World Music Festival needs to be reinitiated, given the "no concensus" result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 World Music Festival. Maybe an Afd initiated on a Saturday would garner more comments. --Bejnar (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks - you may be right - I'll see how time tomorrow pans out. Regards Velella Velella Talk 16:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Link Spam Edits
[edit]Just wanted to thank you for cleaning up all of the fungal pages that had been linked spammed.TelosCricket (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- You're very welcome. If you come across another swathe, I would be happy to wade in. Velella Velella Talk 19:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Re: Medicinal fungi
[edit]Oh nice! Most keen to go through it, though I'm afraid I won't have time to do it justice until later in the week. I guess we'd need to go through the procedure described at WP:MERGE, though perhaps having a decent post-merge draft would expedite the process. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Moulds (Molds) and their medicinal uses
[edit]I will take a look at those pages. TelosCricket (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- A cursory glance would suggest that Medicinal molds, Medicinal mushroom, & Medicinal fungi could probably be merged. I will give it a better look over and more thoughtful consideration, though. TelosCricket (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Small édit
[edit]Hi. I just suppressed Yaumeni Lazuka, because this is a mistake spelling of this Belarus swimmer. Nothing more, nothing less.--93.7.78.219 (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- All the more reason to leave the re-direct alone. If others make the same mistake then they should eventually get to the right page. If it needs the spelling changing, then please change the spelling, but deleting a re-direct is very rarely useful. Velella Velella Talk 19:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Excuse me but I do not agree. In most of the WPs, the cacography are always blanked. There is no M in this first name. So this is a mere error.--93.7.78.219 (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
HydroGeoSphere
[edit]Hi Velella, you made a comment on HydroGeoSphere page, I've been building it up on my free time. I'm one of the developers for the HydroGeoSphere, our model is considered to be one of the best hydrological models. It is actually quite important for our field and is extremely notable for science. I'm currently still in the learning phase for Wikipedia, and I'm going to increase the number of citations pretty soon.
Here is a small list of some of the papers that we've published http://www.aquanty.com/publication/. Thanks, -Jason
- Hi Jason. It is always very difficult to write a Wikipedia article about something that you are closely involved in and this is actively discsouraged on Wikipedia. If something is significant enough to have an article here, then somebody uninvolved will eventually write an article about it. You have a Conflict of interest in writing this article and this conflict of interest should be openly noted on your user page. Please do read the guidelines before editing further. It is also very unwise to scatter links to your organisation in other articles - that pattern of editing could get you blocked from doing any edits.Thanks Velella Velella Talk 07:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Trees with phylloclades
[edit]Hi Velella, I'm not quite sure why you've added a mention of phylloclades without a citation, I guess you're not aware we're in a GA cycle at the moment? I think we should probably remove it as a minor detail not really essential to the topic, but if you'd like to keep it, then it does really need to be cited, and quickly. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Apologies - I hadn't realised that it was up for GA. I have however provided refs for the two key statements - but as they are copied over from the relevant articles that may not meet the consistent formatting requirements of a GA. Please remove the sentence completely if it is hindering progress. I added the sentence because otherwise the article implies that all trees have conventional leaves - which is not the case. Regards Velella Velella Talk 20:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's great. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Score publishing
[edit]- Hi there Velella. SWalker101 here. I responded to your comment on the Score Publishing page. I hope we can discuss this and come to some sort of understanding as I thought what I was doing was very much in line with Wikipedia standards and what adds value to the site. Thanks for your help.** — Preceding unsigned comment added by SWalker101 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- It may be worth carefully reading the Wikipedia guides on notability. It would be very unusual to find a 2014 company that had established sufficient notability to have an article here. Your article certainly doesn't demonstrate any such notability. At the end of the day it isn't my call as to what articles are deleted, I only nominate those that appear to fail the basic criteria for inclusion here. Velella Velella Talk 22:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for moving this to where it was supposed to go. Fairly new to Wikipedia obviously. If it needs to be deleted, so be it - I did just look at the standards, and while I'm not sure whether there's been a third-party media source or article on the company yet, there has been on their iBooks Author Certification Program. I was approaching it from the standpoint that including a company page helps answer a question a lot of people ask when they learn about the iBACP (iBooks Author Certification Program) but if that view isn't shared on Wikipedia, so be it. I do know if its deleted, I certainly won't re-write all that again! :) Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SWalker101 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Since this is a Draft: article, it doesn't go to AFD - and, indeed, some of the templates go wonky when it's not in the article space. If you believe that this draft should be deleted, you'll want to head over to WP:MFD and follow the steps there. I left the debate in place if you want to copy your rationale over, though obviously it's looked at differently as a draft. Let me know if I can help out. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Apologies.I should have noticed that it was a Draft article. I wouldn't have tagged it had I realised. Thanks for the heads up . Velella Velella Talk 13:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
[edit]Hello Velella/Archives. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.
The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.
If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)
If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.
Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.
I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).
Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
SummerPhD
[edit]Regarding your restore of SummerPhD's 'laundry lists' at their User page... actually, I acted in defense of the editor when another editor did similar to them. I later realised that editor was guilty of the same thing, and gave substantial fair notice that they were also acting in the same inappropriate manner.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Summer PhD
[edit]"When those listed start shouting I may concur": I'm shouting. Flagging up a minor content dispute (re. Paddington) on ones user page is tantamount to canvassing. There is absolutely no good reason why an editor
- 17:37, 7 December 2014: Opens thread on talk page, then
- 17:38, 7 December 2014: lists it in their 'personal grudge' section, all before anyone has had a chance to comment.
Polemic is there for a reason, and tere was absolutely no reason for you to re-instate something that acts as a canvassing tool and is divisive and disruptive to others. - SchroCat (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Polemic: It does not attack or vilify anyone. It is not negative information about anyone.
- Canvassing: It is not intended to draw anyone to the discussion. Further, it is Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open.
- Yes, we disagree. I get it. This, however, is not acceptable. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Undid revision...
[edit]I honestly don't understand why you undid my revision on the Camera lens page. Could you please explain to me what was wrong? - PotatoNinja123 (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- You added 'under Zuiko' presumably a reference to the branding given to some Olympic photographic lenses (but not all). The Olympus article already provides information on branding and because not all Olympic lenses are branded in this way and because your edit was unclear in its meaning, I reverted it. Velella Velella Talk 08:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough then. All of the olympus lenses I have are branded under Zuiko, so that's what I just assumed... - PotatoNinja123 (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
A7
[edit]Sorry, but you can't use A7 on musicals. A7 is for people, groups of people, companies, named animals, web content and organised events. Festivals count as events, but a musical is a script and written music as well as any performance that's given, and if not regarded as notable should be dealt with by prod or AfD. Peridon (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girish Jhunjhnuwala
[edit]Hi. You nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girish Jhunjhnuwala Can you please suggest which type of references I should incorporate to make it more credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.31.9 (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Random Cookie Passing By
[edit]
BigBryan0 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Just a random cookie just for you! Enjoy!
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Please note I've declined your request to speedily delete this article. It says she was in two TV shows, which is enough to suggest potential notability. You can list at WP:AFD if you still want it deleted. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
National Rivers Authority
[edit]On 9 March 2012 you wrote "the NRA ceased to exist when it was subsumed into the Environment Agency together with HMIP and the local authority waste regulation functions" on the article National Rivers Authority. HMIP is a red link, with no other context, and I cannot find what it refers to. The only HMIP I can find from Google is to do with Prisons or Probation. Can you remember what HMIP was in this context? Regards. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- HMIP was Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. This had been created some years prviously from the old Factories Inspectorate and dealt exclusively with emissions from certain industrial premises. The origin of the inspecorate was the Alkali Act 1863 which brought into being the Alkali Inspectorate. See also [1] .Hope that this helps. Regards Velella Velella Talk 19:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
See this (I rved them earlier) and User talk:George8211#chesskid. —George8211 / T 19:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Nothing Odd about the page of Sunil Sanjan
[edit]Seems like a bunch of people just registered today just to be on the talk page of Sunil Sanjan, something to keep in mind for the speedy deletion I think as it seems that now there are a bunch of uneeded keeps (possible SPI as well as I've seen that happen quite a bit for afds)Wgolf (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Kumarsunils (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Nothing against you but Bro Wgolf it is not bunch of people. Its users because of these users the portals like this exist. Please at-least respect them. I am not sure or here to defend others but I believe page Sunil Sanjan should stay... Thanks.
Dharti Sharma (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Dear Wgolf , sorry but no offense here. Lets be pure professional here and nothing personal. Please do not say bunch of users.. I am regular user but never registered before. Just landed on this page Sunil Sanjan. It does not violate any rules. Page should stay..
Alishasamuel (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)I fully agree with others above. Hi Wgolf, lets keep personal things aside. I still insist, page Sunil Sanjan does not violate any rules and nothing is odd. Appreciate if you guys can keep it. Thanks.
Surekha Rao (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)I also agree..Page should not be deleted. It is not violating anything.
Natashasencute (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)There seems nothing wrong with Sunil Sanjan page. I support it. It should not be deleted. It does not violate anything.
- This page is not a blog for socks, please take your discussion to the appropriate page where it will receive the hearing it deserves. Velella Velella Talk 09:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
FYI: Pillsbury Doughboy
[edit]I removed your warning to 24.13.230.116 (talk · contribs) regarding their edits to Pillsbury Doughboy as they were correcting the name. The name was changed back in February and nobody noticed. See my talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
A9
[edit]Hi. I've declined your speedy request on a couple of Monstercat discs. This is because A9 depends on two things. First, the recording must be non-notable (I pass on that one in this case...), AND second, the band/artiste/elephant/whatever must not have an article on Wikipedia. A9 is the only speedy dependent on two conditions that must both be met - all the others have a basic single reason. Non-notable recordings by notable people can be put to WP:PROD or WP:AFD. I've never tried either for a recording yet. I do take quite a few A9s off, so don't think I'm picking on you... Peridon (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Irreligion in Germany
[edit]The information on this subject was more thorough on the "Demographics of Atheism" page than on the "Irreligion in Germany" page. I did delete the article on Irreligion in Germany, but only to copy and paste the section of Atheism in Germany from Demographics of Atheism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexEisenkreuz (talk • contribs) 18:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Anne Geddes
[edit]Hi Velella,
I wanted to find out the correct way to make edits to untrue material on a Wikipedia page. I'm looking to make changes to the Anne Geddes bio page, and they keep getting rejected. For example Anne doesn't live in New Zealand.
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smg84 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- The changes are always rejected for many reasons. Firstly the text appears to be copyright and can certainly be found all over the web including , for example here. Wikipedia takes copyright violation very seriously and any material identified as a potential copyright violation is removed immediately. Secondly, the wording used is very flowery, fawning, and in Wikipedia talk, full of "peacock phrasing". I.e it is not the language of an encyclopaedia which presents facts and not personal opinions. Any changes or additions need to be supported by independednt reliable references and not the website of the subject of the page. Unfortunately many prominent figures are not always wholly truthful about their public persona. Hope that this helps. Velella Velella Talk 22:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Please Do Not Undo The Changes
[edit]Please i request all wikipedia authorieties that please dont undo my contributions, coz all the sources are credible and reliable, its a hard work of many days i contribute his most of the films and add more to his career. thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by John leo007 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Sir Please Guide Me
[edit]What is the exact policy of Wikipedia for Sultan Rahi, and please let me know what all you want why don't you accept my article ???? (John leo007 (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)).
- I trust that the answer here is a sufficient response. Velella Velella Talk 22:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Thames Water
[edit]... intending to copy and paste to London wiki - usual 'computer doing what it thinks you want.' Jackiespeel (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- One day the computers may start getting it right......then we will all be in deep trouble! Velella Velella Talk 12:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- There are the things 'the computers do that are right, and which are expected of them' (shifting to summer time), things where they suggest options that you hadn't thought about (including the 'grammatical suggestions' that turn your text into something completely different and often meaningless) and the things they get wrong (sometimes bizarrely or spectacularly - see the retranslations of The Eye of Argon). But - one's name gets slightly misspelt and you recognize it - one letter wrong and the computer gives up.
Nor can they deal with deliberate human stupidity, 'asking questions in the wrong way' and human ingenuity (including in creating problems). Jackiespeel (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Deletions to SB101
[edit]Cybermann (talk)Hi Velella - Sorry I didn't explain my deletions to SB101, but I inserted redundant material about corporations leaving Indiana in light of SB101. I was just deleting the redundant material I mistakenly inserted - CybermannCybermann (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Lacey Turner
[edit]Hi Vevella, Just wanted to let you know that Lacey Turner began her acting career in 2004, EastEnders was her first Television role. She did not have any other work before that year, especially not in 1999. I have rectified your mistake! You can do some research based on this if you wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulDiamond112 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- If you check back through the history you may see that your edit removed content from the article as well as changing dates. You edit had no summary to explain what you were doing, nor have you provided any reference to the change in date. Hence the revert. Signing your messages would also help. Velella Velella Talk 19:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Twitter is an acceptable source for articles about the person themselves
[edit]See WP:SELFSOURCE. The statement is not exceptionally self-serving, was acknowledge by both parties, makes no claims other than those directly related to Yu and Solusod, and is only used to cite that one statement rather than the whole article. There's nothing wrong with its use as a source in this instance. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- The problem I see is that the tweet in question was posted on April Fool's Day and has not been followed up with confirmation. However, if it is going forward, we should expect to see wedding planning activity later. So I would advise waiting for those more official tweets and news articles. And engagements aren't particularly notable for these voice actors. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Automated guided vehicle: Theme Parks
[edit]Thanks for the help on Automated guided vehicle#Theme Parks. Elisfkc (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
This theme parks/passenger vehicles section has no business being part of a page on industrial automation vehicles. Passenger vehicles are not the same. Maybe you should post your information with Autonomous Car article, since those are passenger vehicles, rather than here. Note that it this time the Autonomous Cars article does not reference the Automated Guided Vehicles article because it is irrelevant to the discussion of driverless cars, which is what Walt Disney World is advertising in the article about industrial vehicles. Really, this data and advertisement about Disney should be removed or moved to a different article! Not relevant! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.131.34 (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment on articles and their contents belong on article talk pages and not on editor talk pages. Thanks Velella Velella Talk 22:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations for 10 years on Wikipedia
[edit]Hey, I just came to know you completed 10 years on Wikipedia. It's something really great. How many edit have you made so far? Shall I nominate you for RFA if at all interested? Dormantos (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind wishes and thanks also for your suggestion. I am currently at around 52K edits - although many of those are huggle or other semi automated edits. If I passed through RFA, I suspect that I would quickly get frustrated by the more malign forces in Wikipedia and risk loosing my temper - to the detriment of all concerned! Sometimes it would be good to have a sub-set of the tool-kit just to deal with obvious vandals, but until there is a role of semi-admin, I guess I am content to sit on my hands. Many thanks for the kind thought though. Regards Velella Velella Talk 14:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I moved the page back. Major is a reference to the type of appliance, not the type of manufacturer. Refer to the article Major appliance that is Wiki-linked in the opening sentence. The word was included to specifically exclude companies that only manufacture small appliances like toasters and irons. If you think that the title parses poorly, please start of discussion on the talk page of the article with suggestions and try to get a consensus before moving it again. Nyth63 21:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- No , all of the manufacturers were not noted in external links. Please see WP:CSC which requires that each item should be verifiable and, in general, have its own Wikipedia article which is not a re-direct. This list signally fails those criteria. At present, I could add any manufacturer that has no notability but happens to have its own web-site. That is not notability in Wikipedia terms. Please re-evaluate your judgement on restoring all this non-notable content. Velella Velella Talk 22:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- In regards to the notability, I find that wikipedia policy and guideslines can end up being like a game of Yu-Gi-Oh! In WP:NOTESAL there is the following:
The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable...
(So there!)Nyth63 01:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- In regards to the notability, I find that wikipedia policy and guideslines can end up being like a game of Yu-Gi-Oh! In WP:NOTESAL there is the following:
Speedy deletion declined: Camilla Stroem Henriksen
[edit]Hello Velella. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Camilla Stroem Henriksen, 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. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Pope Center
[edit]I sent you an email. Please get back to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popecenter (talk • contribs) 19:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Psoriasis foundation
[edit]This seems like it's worded like a talk page warning, with signature. Could you clarify? —George8211 / T 19:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- The section redacted and tagged is a wholesale copyright violation from the website listed, but you are right, the message should be on the talk page - apologies. Velella Velella Talk 19:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Talkback
[edit]Message added 20:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Peridon (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Shouldn't you speak a spialect of Doonerism? Peridon (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmm.... Had to think about that. Probably not. Mine are all unconscious and unintended but they do tend to have at least one real word in them. Spooralect of dynamism might be closer (q.v jackery lock pot - my version of the weekly Lottery Jackpot). Regards Velella Velella Talk 22:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Jose Luis Gonzalez (artist)
[edit]Jose Luis Gonzalez (artist) is full of flaws, but it should have been a draft, not a main space article. See my Comment in your AfD.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree. I just wish there was some way of ensuring that the majority of new articles were funneled through AfC where they would receive a considered review before appearing in mainspace. At present , very few seem to go that route Velella Velella Talk 07:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Jose Luis Gonzalez, Artist
[edit]Dear Velella: I appreciate your help in formatting or whatever your contribution is called. I am so very new at this, but am very concerned about the notice that this file may be deleted. This gentleman is indeed someone people need to hear from and learn from so I would love to get your feedback to help me not lose this article. I interviewed him at great length and reviewed a lot of the materials that Mr. Gonzalez has kept records and copies of that I think is verifiable. Thank you. Ehonza5 (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)ehonza5
- Please read the Wikipedia guidelines on notability (see WP:NOTABILITY) to understand what is required to maintain an article here. The personal recollections of a person, no matter how notable, don't meet the standards required to establish notability. Sorry. Velella Velella Talk 07:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Pyrethrin
[edit]Hello Velella! I am working on the pyrethrin wikipedia page for a biology class, and my teammates and I are editing the page for a project. I foresee us all making fairly substantial changes / moving things around to make it flow better in the future, but you are right it is a good idea still to tell them why I am changing something. Thanks for the reminder!
Invitation
[edit]
|
- That is a kind invitations but, regrettably, this is a topic about which I know nothing at all. If I see something very obvious, I would always be happy to wade it, but that is probably about the best I can offer. Regards Velella Velella Talk 19:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Square foot gardening - revert of "link spam"
[edit]Hi Velella. Re: your recent revert of an edit on Square Foot Gardening. It wasn't my edit, but it doesn't look like link spam to me. My only criticism of it was the author forgot to remove the citation-needed template (which *is* my edit). I thought it was a reasonable citation and I'm inclined to restore it. What was the problem you saw with it? Thomask0 (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Two reasons. One was that the link in question was an unashamed commercial link selling products - cedar wood planks for raised beds etc. The second was that all of the edits made by the editor in question were to add links to this same site leaving a very strong suggestion that he/she was link spamming. It is also worth noting that the "The logic behind using smaller beds is that they are easily adapted, and the gardener can easily reach the entire area" is not a claim made that seems to be made by either Mel Bartholemew or the Square Foot Gardening foundation - perhaps because it is so obvious as not to need stating. Regards Velella Velella Talk 07:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmm - I think you're maybe being a wee bit harsh. Sure the page is on a commercial site, but the material on the page itself seems innocuous to me. Shrug. But what's your impression of the SFR article as a whole? I've already beaten it to within an inch of its life because it was chock full of the kind of problem you've just mentioned. But the result is, in refactoring so as to fix those problems I think it exposes the simple fact that SFR is barely notable. I mean, it's clearly a "thing", but I'm having trouble seeing it as being sufficiently notable. I'm still not convinced that the article shouldn't just be deleted (or maybe merged into something more substantial). Rather than me just blundering in with a deletion request, I've invited discussion on this on the Talk page. But that was 2.5 months ago, with no response. What do you think? Thomask0 (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Chan Veryam
[edit]Thanks for putting the speedy on Chan Veryam though I can tell you the creator will delete it-he is also part of a long chain of SP's, see here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vamsiraj Wgolf (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- That looks fun! I'll keep my revert button at the ready ! Regards Velella Velella Talk 16:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Speedy decline basis
[edit]Hey Velella. I noticed that you tagged the page Shraddha Sharma for speedy deletion under CSD A7. While that's a valid reason for speedy deletion in general, this page does not qualify for speedy deletion under that criterion because the article including three citations to major newspaper articles discussing the subject in detail. The inclusion of reliable secondary, independent sources is just about the most fundamental claim of importance or significance an article can make for purposes of A7, where the higher bar of meeting notability on the merits (such as at AfD) looks to that standard for assessment. If you still think the page should be deleted, please consider tagging it with a speedy deletion template which does apply, redirecting it to another page, proposing the page for deletion if it appears to be an uncontroversial matter, or taking the page to articles for deletion for discussion on the merits. Thanks! --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Balloon
[edit]someone accidentally reverted my edit when reverting vandal' edits. I fixed it. Deballooner (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Clearly not. See here. You are at significant risk of being blocked from editing if you continue in this way. Velella Velella Talk 20:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I reverted vandal edits afterwards.
- Never a good reason - and it appears that those were edits that you placed there. Velella Velella Talk 20:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Dubai
[edit]Yusufnagib (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Velella, The Links are not spam and this is the official website for Tourism Board. Thanks,
- Maybe, but Wikipedia is not a tourist guide. All the other external links provide access to official information and are not selling anything. Please see Wikivoyage if you wish to promote tourist destinations. Thanks Velella Velella Talk 15:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Source for Thick of It edit
[edit]The source was the Radio Times article already cited in the same sentence; I simply improved the clarity of that sentence, and made it less of an attempt at emphasising one possible basis for the character over another.80.189.123.180 (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thanks for monitoring the leachate page Velella! Appreciate a fellow environmentalist who knows the importance of leachate management. I'm not sure where RO is being used, but in the US (obviously where regulations exist) crystallizers are being adopted (RO scales and brine volume is a problem). Don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions at all. Mitchfrank12 (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
[edit]|
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thank you for your contribution to the Hugill article, I believe I made a mistake taking out statistics without putting an edit summary. I have got rid of those stats because they didn't match up with the rest of the article. Jaipreetburji (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC) |
- Thanks for the star!. The problem with the article is that it deals with two different things - Hugil Parish with a population of c. 103,000 and Hugil village with a population of around 450. Rather than deleting the good reference for the Parish population, it might be better to restructure the article to cover the village and the Parish under separate headings. then both figures can be included. However do be aware of not including original research of your own synthesis of information, neither of which are permitted on Wikipedia. I will also post a summary of these comments on the article talk page. Regards Velella Velella Talk 09:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Digitalization
[edit]Why did you delete my text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orhan2015 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Because it was added to a re-direct page and therefore the text should have been added at the redirected article. If that was not appropriate then an explanatory edit summary would have been required to explain why you were populating the re-direct page. The text itself was very likely to have been deleted in any case as unreferenced and un-encyclopaedic. Please read Wikipedia guidelines before making any significant additions. Thanks Velella Velella Talk 10:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Talkback
[edit]Message added 01:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Request to revisit the discussion. North America1000 01:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Invitation to join WikiProject Sanitation
[edit]Hi, thanks for your barnstar for my work on the sewage sludge page, much appreciated. :-) Would you like to add yourself as a member to our WikiProject Sanitation? Would be very nice to have you with us. EvM-Susana (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar |
| Hello, Velella.
Thank you for reviewing my article. You made a point, the article is about the designer Carrie Jenkinson and not the company. I will edit it accordingly. This means to change the title from "Carrie Jenkinson Millinery" to "Carrie Jenkinson" , which I have trouble doing. Can you help me with that? I will also more reliable sources about the designer in the References section. Cheers! Thehatlover (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC) |
- Done as requested. There is still a great deal of work needed to make this one stick. At present it will be automatically deleted after 7 days if there are no authoritative and reliable refs provided. The current ones are mere mentions - they don't count. It really needs somebody like Vogue or the BBC or The Guardian , as examples, writing about Carrie Jenkinson specifically;preferably, but not exclusively, in favourable terms. Biographies of living persons (BLP) featuring business people are very hard to maintain on Wikipedia because of the lack of references to establish notability. Have a careful read through notability guidelines for more advice. Regards Velella Velella Talk 11:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]|
|
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar |
| Thank you, Velella!
The article's title is ok, now. I'm proceeding to add two images (one to the infobox) and then some citations. Cheers! Thehatlover (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
[edit]|
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
| Hello, Velella.
thank you for taking time to review my article. I added reference to a reliable source, actually two of them, 2 articles from newspapers. Just let me know if this helps the credibility of the article and what else can I do to make it right. Cheers! Thehatlover (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC) |
- Sorry to the bearer of not-so-good news, but I suspect that the refs you have won't be judged to have established notability. Please bear in mind though that I am not the judge here. The evaluation will be by a consensus of editors who will make the assessment based on a detailed and thorough knowledge of the notability guidelines. At present, my feeling is that it won't be considered notable. Just in case, it might be prudent to store a copy of your current best version on a PC in the hope that national recognition will come soon and the article can then be uploaded again with the better refs. It looks at present as if it is too early in her professional career to try and create a Wikipedia article. Regards Velella Velella Talk 15:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
DxO Optics Pro was a rather simple stub, yet you tagged it G11
[edit]I feel like this requires an explanation since there was hardly any content on the page, it was properly stub-tagged, and it seems it would have been very easy to remove anything you felt objectionable. Pinging @RHaworth: who ratified the deletion.
Incidentally, Paulawirth is wrong in stating the name has always been one word. It seems that this usage was adopted recently. Samsara 20:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have been away for a few days but it looks as though this thread is now dead. Velella Velella Talk 18:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- I would still like to hear your explanation, actually. Samsara 03:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have very little recollection of one edit amongst many. I am not an admin and have no opportunity to review the content of the stub. Not being an admin, my only role was to propose an article for speedy deletion, I imagine it appeared to be promotional without any evidence of notability - but that is an assumption based on the information that you yourself have provided. It appears that the reviewing admin agreed with my judgement. I can add very little to that except to note that to be en editor on Wikipedia does not demand a perfect memory of events that happened a week ago. Velella Velella Talk 19:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- So I may revert your action? Samsara 13:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have very little recollection of one edit amongst many. I am not an admin and have no opportunity to review the content of the stub. Not being an admin, my only role was to propose an article for speedy deletion, I imagine it appeared to be promotional without any evidence of notability - but that is an assumption based on the information that you yourself have provided. It appears that the reviewing admin agreed with my judgement. I can add very little to that except to note that to be en editor on Wikipedia does not demand a perfect memory of events that happened a week ago. Velella Velella Talk 19:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- I would still like to hear your explanation, actually. Samsara 03:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Why?
[edit]Can you please explain this edit? Please take a look at the pages Portugal and Portuguese before responding. Thank you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Apologies. Not sure why that happened. Now corrected. Regards. Velella Velella Talk 17:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Yo waz up Velella How You This is Nu Yawk Sity
[edit]What's the Problem! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nu Yawk Sity (talk • contribs) 20:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion
[edit]Hello,
I was very new to Wikipedia and created a small page related to a person of interest in our community. It amazed me how intimidating Wikipedia administrators like yourself are and how a small page which may be of some interest to people, can be bombarded with deletion messages from the other side of the world. It has completely put me off Wikipedia for good. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickmurphyus (talk • contribs) 20:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- I am sorry you feel intimidated and for the record I am not an administrator, simply another editor like yourself. It is a matter of record that Wikipedia is bombarded by articles which have no chance of survival because their subjects do not meet the notability criteria required by Wikipedia. The choice then is whether to put the article through a long process or a quick process . I tend to believe that the speedy deletion is, in the end, less painful than a drawn out deletion process. But I am willing to accept that in this respect others may not share my view. Velella Velella Talk 21:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
20:53:54, 28 June 2015 review of submission by Kevin Cordeiro
[edit]
Kevin Cordeiro (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
My Updates were deleted
[edit]Hi, I had just updated a couple of Wikipedia pages with my own publications and experiments results so there was no copyright issue. My work have been published and thus it was scientifically reviewed. But you deleted all the updates that I had made in Wikipedia. I'm wondering if there were something wrong? Regards, Kevin KiarashKevin86 (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- All the edits appear to be promoting the work of one individual author through a single Journal. This type of editing tends to be perceived as self promotional by an author wishing to give his or her work more exposure and is termed "citation spamming" or "link spamming". To avoid being seen as being self promotional it is prudent to avoid using your own material or that of close colleagues as references. Please see this guidance In general Wikipedia deprecates primary research as references sources and instead strongly prefers secondary or tertiary sources. Please see WP:PRIMARY which provides a fuller explanation. I hope that this explains the deletions. Regards Velella Velella Talk 13:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Nametagging and Bots
[edit]Hello Velella!
First of all, I would like to thank you for contacting me with your direct explanation of your edit, as well as responding to the ClueBot's edit. I reported ClueBot's edit of my changes to the Halton Catholic District School Board article because it more than just deleted the names of the Senior Staff, Trustees, etc. - it also deleted the (lengthy) "Families of Schools" edit that was made. Luckily, I was able to restore that portion.
Concerning your edit, I reviewed the "Wikipedia:Namechecking" page after your first edit. Although I did note that the article mentions, "Listing the staff of a school board, small business, design studio or college department does not add to a reader's understanding of the topic" the names of these senior staff and trustees were put placed onto the page to answer the questions of parents and students who may visit the page for a summary of the information provided on the Board's website (using Wikipedia as a short and comprehensive guide to HCDSB). Countless inquiries are made each year as to which superintendent is the overseer of which area/school region, etc., hence the reason why the names were included even before I began editing/updating the HCDSB article.
The names of trustees and superintendents have been on the aforementioned article for years; this Wikipedia page is being used as a quick guide to the school board, and including these names only add to the relevant information provided. I will refrain from re-adding these names until further contact is made.
Thank you Troliovi (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC) Troliovi
- Thanks for the update and I realised that your edits were in good faith and deserved a little more explanation than ClueBot's dry rhetoric. I also accept your reasoning which is perfectly proper for a school board.
- Unfortunately, informing parents and other interested parties about key players is not the remit of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not hosts prospectuses (prospectae?) or CVs and only deals with encyclopaedic information. The provision of a link to the Board's web-site is sufficient to re-direct interested parties to more pertinent text on your own web-site. From Wikipedia's point of view, the addition of names could be done by anyone and they could be complete nonsense or even defamatory. I welcome your statement on your user page about your involvement with the Board which helps address any conflict of interest issues and you may wish to report back to the board the differences between Wikipedia's interests and the Board's interest and how they differ. You may wish to have a look at Eton College, one of the most prestigious schools in the UK and note that that article includes no names of its trustees or charitable board.
- I hope that this helps. Regards. Velella Velella Talk 15:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Sonbhadra Fossils Park
[edit]Thank you for your help. I. request you to open abd read these. Links Related to the Sonbhadra Fossils Park
1. http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/103/05/0469.pdf
2. (redacted black list URL)
3. (redacted black-list URL)
4. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9xszZzQnKn0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kartiktiwary3 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. The links make interesting reading and I am pleased to see the progress made on the article which now looks much better. The correspondence is interesting, but a much better reference would be the correspondence from the "American scientists" themselves, preferably in a publication that could be quoted directly. At present there is no good authority for the date and importance asserted but since these are not in contention the existing sources look OK. Regards Velella Velella Talk 22:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Ajay Bhai Amrit
[edit]Hi Velella
Thank you very much for your time looking through the articles and as asked the user page has now been moved to draft.Changes to the charity section has been edited with new references and external links as well. Please do go over the draft and kindly let me know of the changes it may need.
ThanksAvithesharkman (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
JReport page deletion
[edit]Hello,
Links that establish notability:
http://siliconangle.com/blog/2015/07/10/jreport-reveals-its-secret-sauce-rhsummit/ http://www.streetinsider.com/Press+Releases/JReport+Excels+in+Reporting+and+Visualization+According+to+Butler+Analytics/10640102.html http://siliconangle.com/blog/2015/07/10/jreport-reveals-its-secret-sauce-rhsummit/ http://www.bbbt.us/events/bbbt-jinfonet-2015/ http://teich-communications.com/jinfonet-at-the-bbbt-oem-or-direct-a-decision-is-necessary/ http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-328030418.html http://www.itjungle.com/fhs/fhs070913-story09.html http://www.itbriefcase.net/mapr-distribution-now-ships-with-apache-drill-1-0 https://drill.apache.org/blog/2015/05/19/the-apache-software-foundation-announces-apache-drill-1.0/
- The decision to retain or delete is in the hands of the consensus of Wikipedia editors. I took the careful decision to nominate the article for deletion based on my own review of the sources. Reiterating those sources to me is unlikely to change my view , unless you wish to suggest that I was less than careful in my original review. Velella Velella Talk 21:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
pfSense deletion
[edit]Hi Velella
Sorry if i offended you. Yes i've read your contributions before i wrote and didn't really see anything related to opensource/unix/other_technical_topics.
I'm a moderator on the pfSense forum and there is currently a big dispute over pfSense/opnsense. Someone brought in this context up that the pfSense page was nominated for deletion and then the accusations started. With this background i was curious if you were affiliated with opnsense.
However my question still stands. What triggered you to mark this page for deletion? Because looking at almost all opensource project (well except the biggest ones) you'd have to mark them for deletion. Would a "this page has issues" header not have been enough?
Best regards Matthias GruensFroeschli (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Very simple. I occasionally track the edits being made by new contributors since this is one way of identifying and stopping vandalism at source. The PfSense article was edited on 21st July at 00.22 by User:Mnlth, I saw the edit on the log and had a look at the article. Velella Velella Talk 13:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- The user you refer to (Mnlth) is known as htilonom on twitter and he is making rediculous accusations about OPNsense all the time. At this very moment he is tweeting that OPNsense asked for deletion of the pfSense page. Even if you do not agree with us about notability could you take a look at the OPNsense page?
- While I do understand the policies of wikipedia, some terms like notability are applied different by the administrators. I hope you can help us out here to make better arcticles, both for pfSense as well as OPNsense. It is important for an ecyclopedia to be correct as well as it is important to be complete. Joswp (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Both pages are subject to the same deletion process and it won't be me that makes either decision whether to keep or delete. The judgement should not be on a vote but whether the sources provided give good reason to believe that the articles have established notability as defined by Wikipedia. I cannot comment on the interpretations made by administrators - I am not one. I regret that I cannot add anything of value to either article since I have no understanding of the content of either article. If you believe that unfair tactics have been used in the discussion, then these issues should be raised in the first instance on the deletion page together with your evidence of these tactics. Velella Velella Talk 21:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
August 2015
[edit]
Hi Velella. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Radio Chehrazi, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Though the article is possibly non-notable, it qualifies as a valid stub and is thus not eligible for speedy deletion as lacking context. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers, criteria for speedy deletion, and particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Thanks! Gparyani (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Not a problem. The article made no sense to me so I tagged it as "No context". If it made sense to you that is fine!. Regards Velella Velella Talk 22:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
David Winninger
[edit]Hello, You placed a notability tag on the page of this person which I removed. You should review the notability guidelines for politicians. According to this policy, all past and present provincial MPPs are notable by the fact that they were members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, but nevertheless, the article is insufficiently referenced to establish notability under WP:GNG. Had he not been inherently notable, I should have tagged the article for deletion. Velella Velella Talk 07:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
List of Igbo monarch
[edit]Hi Velella. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for the List of Igbo monarch that you indicated to remove. The book you talked about as my personal book is a well know history book that was published in 1963 and it is not my book. There are so many books that talked about this historical facts and so the point you raised is not suitable for deletion. You can argue the article is a stub and need more citation but the information there is historical facts ] comment added by Joy-historian Joy-historian (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
21:45:05, 15 August 2015 review of submission by Jock.rutherford
[edit]
Thanks for taking the time to review my article. Your comments are appreciated. I'm unclear, however, on the reason for declining. The article establishes that Thomas Rutherford is the first resident of Owen Sound, Ontrioa and was one of the pioneers in that area of Ontario. The surveyor, Charles Rankin, mentioned in the article has his own wikipedia article.
The Paul White reference is verifiable here : https://books.google.ca/books?id=AP3QKfiKwugC&pg=PA13#v=onepage&q&f=false
Thanks for your consideration.
Jock.
Jock.rutherford (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Jock. I liked the article and read it through several times. I had also seen it at an earlier stage as a draft and thought to put a note on your talk page about notability then but you completed the draft before I had time to do that. The big issue is what is Thomas Rutherford notable for, what is it that he is famous (or infamous) for. I haven't seen that yet and I am perfectly prepared to accept that I may be mis-reading the article. But if I am mis-reading it, then so will others. If, as it appears, he is simply an early settler in Canada who was the first to become established in Owen Sound then it is difficult in seeing that as sufficient notability for a stand alone article. A shortened form might very well fit into the the article Owen Sound. Incidentally in the draft, it never states that Thomas Rutherford was the first resident of Owen Sound !.
- It might have been better to have started the article with
Thomas Rutherford was the first resident of Owen Sound in Canada having purchased the land in 1845 for the sum of £45.
- ...but even that would not, in my view, have made the article notable. I would be quite happy if you wish to re-submit and I will leave it to another edit to take a view. Regards Velella Velella Talk 22:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Charles Hill Dick
[edit]Hi Velella, I see that my article on Charles Hill Dick has not been accepted. I wrote the article because the book he wrote 'Highways and Byways in Galloway and Carrick' is still much sought after in this part of the world. If you google it you will find many references to the book, but nothing on the author. The book doesn't even give you his first names. The author simply calls himself Rev C.H. Dick. I was curious to find out more about him and did my own research. He was a close friend of a very notable person, the author and politician John Buchan. I am sure many people in this area and more widely have wanted to know more about Dick as a person and I felt I was doing people a service by putting this article together. Are you not willing to reconsider?91.125.237.198 (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- As I noted in the review, it is a well put together article and it is clear that much work has been done to get it to this stage. However, Wikipedia is very clear that the primary qualification for an article is that the subject should be notable , and notable as defined by Wikipedia. It is also clear that it doesn't regard notability by association as notability in its own right. Regrettably therefore, the article is unlikely to succeed. However, I would have no problem with another editor looking at it and if you re-submit, I will excuse myself from the review. Regards Velella Velella Talk 22:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete of Plusauto SRL
[edit]Hi, you deleted the page i create.
The page name was Plusauto. This company exist, and I work there.
Why did you deleted it?
Thanks,
Alex Vlaicu Vlaicuia (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't actually delete it. I simply tagged it for deletion because there was no evidence that the company was in any way notable. The administrator who deleted it clearly agreed with my judgement. Regards Velella Velella Talk 22:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Laurence Gross
[edit]He was a broadcaster in San Diego. Links are attach. Why did you tag this for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jg10101 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Only one ref that did not appear to demonstrate any notability. The decision whether to delete or not is up to an admin. You make make your case against deletion as set out in the template message at the head of the article. Regards. Velella Velella Talk 22:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Your tag for deletion was unwarranted. Laurence Gross' contributions to the San Diego broadcasting community are clear in the links provided. See also: http://articles.latimes.com/1991-10-28/entertainment/ca-326_1_san-diego — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jg10101 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
23:03:03, 21 August 2015 review of submission by Dsbartholomew
[edit]
Dsbartholomew (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Hi Velella,I have edited my article on Rev C.H. Dick. Do you think this makes it more acceptable? Kind Regards.Dsbartholomew (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Jessica mylar
[edit]Hi Velella, you wrote that I can't remove a speedy deletion tag from Continuity Software, a page that I created myself. But I wasn't the one who created this wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessica mylar (talk • contribs) 14:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe not. I can, at present, deduce no certainty about that statement. However, you did remove the deletion tag without good reason. Care to explain? Velella Velella Talk 14:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
AstroPrint
[edit]Velella, Thanks for the comments. I updated the page per your request by removing excess citations and irrelevant external links. I also improved clarity and wording. Can you please re-check the the AstroPrint page and provide further feedback if necessary? Thank you! I appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayLoerns (talk • contribs) 21:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- I note the changes that have been made. I would strongly prefer for another editor to review the article second time around. This tends to avoid potential issues with editors appearing to be less than impartial or having grudges or being biased in some way. I am sure another reviewer will review the draft soon. Regards Velella Velella Talk 22:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
16:53:19, 28 August 2015 review of submission by NABolalek
[edit]
NABolalek (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear Velella, Andy Babiuk is a well know world authority on vintage guitars and musical equipment. He has worked directly with the Beatles and the Rolling Stones documenting their musical equipment in his books. He is a staff consultant to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and has given lectures and universities and museums around the world on the topic. He has been interviewed by almost every major media out let many of which are noted in the submitted article. Andy Babiuk is also a noted musician. His two bands The Chesterfield Kings and The Empty Hearts are also well documented and have toured the world and appeared on many major television shows. The two bands are also listed on Wikipedia. With all of the information that has been provided I believe this follows your guidelines. Please let me know what else you may need. Thank you for your help! Best Regards, Nadia
From Martinmocha - Velella, not knowing where to answer your remark about my edit of I Want to Hold Your Hand, (being nexperienced with Wiki techniques) I picked this section because it included Andy Babuik who I also referenced. As of now, I have property referenced his book in my edit so it should be OK:-) How do I normally respond to a talk page?,,,,, can anyone give me the nuts and bolts...danka.
- I did not see and still do not see the robust independent reference to support the assertions you make here and in the draft article. However, my strong preference is to allow another editor to conduct a second evaluation, this tends to avoid bias. I am therefore content to await the view of another. Regards Velella Velella Talk 22:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Jay Bell
[edit]Hi Velella, As requested, I provided additional information to support/meet the notability guidelines for Jay Bell (writer). Could you let me know if newly added references are enough to remove the "patrolling" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bell_(writer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RodrigoSamaniego (talk • contribs) 22:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- I prefer for other editors to make such judgements now that I have had my input.I noted the lack of notability on the article and, if I was to comment again, I would not be assured that the notability guidelines had been met. However, I will leave it to others to make the call. Regards Velella Velella Talk 23:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion contested: Al Ain English Speaking School
[edit]Hello Velella, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Al Ain English Speaking School, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to schools. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ah well, I guess we will have to go the long way round to the same conclusion. Junior age schools are almost never notable unless they are truly exceptional. This is clearly not. Sometimes the rules need a little bending to release editors and Admin time for more productive tasks, but I guess the rules are the rules! Velella Velella Talk 23:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
LGBT right
[edit]Do not discriminate people if they are attracted to individual of same sex it's a like, a love they want to make with same sex, a right. People are no one to block their feelings. Government should talk about LGBT and foster it. KattuKakku (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Your edit was reverted because you did not provide a source. As such, it is your personal opinion which is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Velella Velella Talk 19:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Velella
[edit]Hello, It's Cityside189. I placed an image into the blueberry article, hope this is OK. Should the image be moved up higher in the article to correspond with the text of over-fertilization? Thanks for any insight you have.... --Cityside189 (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- The images in this article are all a bit haphazard, and at some time it would be worth re-organizing them all to make the whole article look better. For the moment, your new image is reasonably close to the text that it illustrates so I guess that should be fine. Regards Velella Velella Talk 21:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Tagging of Ni Tu Esposa, Ni Tu Amante,Ni Tu Amiga
[edit]I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Ni Tu Esposa, Ni Tu Amante,Ni Tu Amiga. I do not think that Ni Tu Esposa, Ni Tu Amante,Ni Tu Amiga fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because Mention, plus a wiki-link of the artist Jenni Rivera, who seems to be quite notable, gave this sufficient context. I request that you consider not re-tagging Ni Tu Esposa, Ni Tu Amante,Ni Tu Amiga for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have no intention of re-tagging it - why on earth would I do that. It remains strange that an article consisting of a single line that could have been very easily accommodated in the article of its subject should be retained. A simpler note would have sufficed, I seem to recall a mantra about not templating regulars. Perhaps I need to be more regular? Velella Velella Talk 22:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- When I have to send the same basic message over and over, I use a template. I do this whether the recipient is a newbie or a current arbitrator. If anything I am more inclined to use a template when sending a message to a regular editor than to an apparently well-intentioned newbie, because I need not worry about WP:BITE. See User:DESiegel/Template the regulars. And you would be surprised how often editors replace speedy tags after a decline. DES (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Notability might be another matter, of course. DES (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Reg Inglis - what's happening here?
[edit]Why did you revert my additions to article Reg Inglis with the edit summary "(Rvt sock vandal)". I am not a sock or a vandal; I was adding citations to support the notability of the subject. Having deleted those citaiton, you then added a speedy deletion to Reg Inglis. Were you confusing it with Reg Inglis (dance act) which I think is a suspect article; see my discussions here and here with User:Bearcat. Kerry (talk) 04:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have to agree here, it looks like you were getting Kerry Raymond's legitimate edits to the article confused with Harkkomanita/Evlekis' bad ones. I'm still not 100 per cent convinced that the real Reg Inglis has really been fully shown as sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article, but I'm satisfied that Kerry Raymond is making a sincere, good faith effort to get him there — but it's not at all the same issue as Harkkomanita's fake band, which is completely unverifiable by any references at all (even the ones that were added to it didn't actually support it.) There were indeed problems at the article, but Kerry Raymond wasn't the sock/vandal — Harkkomanita was the vandal, and Kerry Raymond was the one actively putting in most of the effort to fix the vandalism. Accordingly, I'm going to restore her version of the article while leaving Harkkomanita's in the dust, and would request that if you still feel really strongly that the real Reg Inglis still isn't notable enough, then please take it to WP:AFD instead of tagging it for speedy again. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 12:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am travelling with a hand-held device and only very occasional and very slow internet connection. When I return to base, I will review this. Velella Velella Talk 01:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Now returned to normality and a normal internet connection. Apologies Kerry, It appears as though one of my edit summaries has also been transposed into an edit for which it was not intended. In trying to stem the tide of one particular sock-master, your edit was caught by friendly fire - wholly unintended. As an aside, I am not convinced about the notability of Reg Inglis, but that is a wholly separate issue which I won't be pursuing Velella Velella Talk 12:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I am travelling with a hand-held device and only very occasional and very slow internet connection. When I return to base, I will review this. Velella Velella Talk 01:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Ctenophora are equiped with colloblasts not nematocysts. Mithril (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Zoology has move on since my graduate days ! Velella Velella Talk 16:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Civility Barnstar |
| Although I disagree with one of your decisions, your conduct in conversation around it, and your good anti-vandalism work during the discussion, was most civil and constructive, and I would like to thank you. Aimeec110 (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC) |
Hello, I would just like to inform you that this is a public IP, and if there is repeated unsigned vandalism to pages, you could request that this IP be stripped of edit privileges. 206.219.153.50 (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- The simple solution is to register a user-name which will avoid any messages aimed at other editors. Blocking an IP address just because of two dodgy edits is not a realistic or balanced solution Velella Velella Talk 23:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Beat the Cold (Charity) (October 13)
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Beat the Cold (Charity) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello! Velella,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Velella Velella Talk 13:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
|