User:Velella/Archives/Archive 10

This talk page contents prior to 18th August 2015 have been archived. Please feel free to start new discussions below.  Velella  Velella Talk 17:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Laurence Gross
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
 * If the school includes high school grades, it is considered notable, even if it also offers elementary school grades. This article would be kept if it was taken to AfD. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

LGBT right
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
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
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 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)


 * For the record - it is now a re-direct.  Velella  Velella Talk 17:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Reg Inglis - what's happening here?
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)

Coelenterata
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!

 * Thank you, and you are very welcome. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 11:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

To whom it may concern
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)

OrcaHub - Speedy Deletion For No Reason?
OrcaHub may not seem important to the general public although for countless users around the world OrcaHub servers as a life line to the internet. For regions in which internet access is restricted.

OrcaHub ranks in the top 0.0004% of websites in the world.

OrcaHub is one of the most critical websites in the middle east, china, and other restricted countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickLimCEO (talk • contribs) 10:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * For no reason ? What gives you that impression ? May I suggest that you first read Wikipedia's notability guidelines which define what qualities an article must have to be retained in Wikipedia. May I also suggest that you also read the conflict of interest guidelines and the username guidance as there is a strong whiff of conflict of interest about the authorship of this article.  Velella  Velella Talk 10:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

FreedomProject Academy
db-corp does not apply to schools. There may be other reasons for deletion, which I will check.  DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. For the record I wasn't convinced that it was a school in any conventional meaning of the term. It seemed to me to be a commercial provider of material "delivered live online through interactive classrooms" from which I judged it to be a company. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 19:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Peridon (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hassan El Fad
The page has a French wiki page-so it looks like he has some sort of notability, if you think he should be deleted-put a AFD or a prod. Thanks. (If it wasn't for the fact the guy put a ref to the French wiki I would of done the same) Wgolf (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Response to removing my edition
Dear Vellela,

Thank you for leaving me a note about removing my edition on the perlite page. I am afraid that I disagree with you. Perlite had a wide range of biotechnological applications and it should be mentioned there. This will encourage others who don't know to look into such applications and utilize those properties of perlite for other applications. I will add more text with references to point out this important application of perlite in its wiki page.

Best, DNvolution — Preceding unsigned comment added by DNvolution (talk • contribs) 20:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You miss the point. What you are doing is known as citation spam in Wikipedia - see here. It consists of posting the same paper, or papers by the same author to many different articles irrespective of the merit of its inclusion. It is also contrary to Wikipedia guidelines which, in general, deprecates primary sources in favour of secondary or tertiary sources - please see here. Adding references to your publications here doesn't increase your citation count in academic circles but just annoys other editors and makes the articles more turgid to read. Please stop. Thanks  Velella  Velella Talk  20:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I get your point and I appreciate your suggestion. I will keep this point in mind in later editions. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by DNvolution (talk • contribs) 20:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Gray Leaf Spot
Hello Velella, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gray Leaf Spot, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''They seem quite different to me, but if you think they're the same (looking at the redirect target rather than the article you linked), then it would be better to redirect than delete, gray leaf spot is a far more likely search term. .''' You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ged UK  12:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * Many thanks. That is a good start to my holiday !  Velella  Velella Talk 08:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

ear Vellala,

Proverb
I simply don't understand why you have deleted the changes I made to the Proverb page.

The matter I included is the latest and published in reputed international publications. Only the references did not come properly owing to editing the references but the content is GENUINE. This is NOT SPAM please. Many of these details are already in the internet.

I am Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar, a proverbiologist, whose work is published in international publications.I come from India and the latest paper I published is in Bis dat, qui cito dat edited by Christian Grandl and Kevin. J. Mckenna and published by Peter Lang.

I think you made a mistake. Could we discuss these please!

May I request you to undo your corrections immediately. If you have problem, please let me know.Bhuvanesvar (talk) 11:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want I will send you the soft copies of the research articles from which this matter is taken.

Yours ,

Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar

Please check the work of Chilukuri Bhuvaneswar - many articles are there in SCRIBD under Bhuvaneswar Chilukuri --- This is my first edit. Please advise me if there any rules to be followed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhuvanesvar (talk • contribs) 10:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You invented the term. You said so in your own edit. This is clearly a neologism without notability.  Velella  Velella Talk 22:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

23:25:19, 26 October 2015 review of submission by Arcuri82
Dear Velella (and LaMona who left a message and did some useful editing),

I have added more independent references, but I could not really find any that is specific and exclusively on the topic of the article (EvoSuite). However, such topic is mentioned in hundreds of scientific articles. For example, Google Scholar states 146 citations alone for the first bibliography entry:

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=Evosuite%3A+automatic+test+suite+generation+for+object-oriented+software&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

does that no count for "Significant coverage" and "notability"?

many thanks

Andrea
 * This is one of the great hurdles in Wikipedia. Unless an article meets the general notability guidelines as a minimum, it should not be accepted in Wikipedia. This means that many important but specialist topics never feature on Wikipedia -it's a pain but that is how all draft articles are judged. Regards.  Velella  Velella Talk 22:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

New message
Hey, a user placed the helpme template, but seems to have been requesting you. See User talk:Viamortis. -- Kethrus &#124;talk to me 13:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Your CSD tagging
I noticed that you tagged Alexander Mercury for speedy deletion. I have removed the tag from the article because it does not meet the criterion specified. Please fully read Criteria for speedy deletion before tagging articles for speedy deletion. Your first drive-by was not just hasty 7 minutes after the article's creation, it blatantly disregarded my In use tag. I removed your A7 tag, it did not apply. You took a 90 minute break, and as the very first thing you did when you returned at 12.43 UTC was to. It still does not apply, and I have removed it again. Consider removing your Db-notability-notice from the user's talk page, please. I can see this is not the first time that CSD#A7 poses a challenge for you: you A7-tagged the 8-year old article Al Ain English Speaking School on 1 September; educational institutions are exempted from A7. Please also read WP:CA7M. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 13:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have removed your db-corp from Nautica (clothing company), a 30+ year old company started by David Chu (designer) and since 2003 owned by a company with a USD 12bn revenue, the claim of significance is credible, and a simple search on e.g. "David Chu" Nautica shows sources are available to confirm notability. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 14:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a perfectly effective mechanism for getting a new article ready for Wikipedia and that is through the AfD process which protects the article until it is ready for submission. Similarly drafting an article in a personal sandbox has the same effect. Unless and until articles in mainspace are demonstrably notable,the they may be nominated for deltion. Wikipedia already has more than enough unsourced and proably non-notable articles that it shouldn't take an experienced editor long to find the appropriate references to clearly demonstrate thir notability. I haven't revisited the articles, but when I do I shall be very dissapointed if they are not better referenced.  Velella  Velella Talk 16:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Friends (magazine)
Hi there, thanks for the notification. I have to agree with your assessment of the article as it is now, that it makes no sense or is lacking in notability. I will therefore not be contesting the PROD. It bears no relation to the article that I started many moons ago, when I was working on a number of artist and photographer articles such as Pennie Smith which threw up oblique references to topics like this. I thought it was worthy at the time, but I can't locate my sources and they seem to be very thin on the ground now. Maybe a NN deletion is in order. Best wishes -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  21:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Stillife
MisterTruth (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Hi I'm not sure if I'm suppose to edit and if not I'm sorry but what would I need to do to fix Stillife (Band)
 * Yes you are allowed to edit, but for there to be an article about Stilllife, you would need to be able to quote some robust and reliable references to show that they are notable. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 15:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE do NOT DELETE my Singing support article! PLEASE
I am opera (tenor) singer for 17,5 years in Russia and I know that this is the MOST IMPORTANT PART IN SINGING. THE MOST. Without it your singing is just bad or good yelling (!). ALL THE TIME. Yes, i do not know English (i know Italian) but help me please, this is not the reason for deleting!! Make it more clear if you are native speaker or know English better. You'd better delete Usher article instead! That's ridiculous!

THE MOST IMPORTANT PART IN SINGING! And this is not useful?

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C2%AB%D0%9E%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%C2%BB_%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F


 * You may well be right - but Wikipedia is not that sort of web-site. I am sure that there are plenty of other sites who would welcome such a contribution. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 18:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

you remove all of my contribution
Hi, I can see you removed all of my contribution and i am new here i am trying to collect data from all over the internet and try to put valuable data in wikipedia but i can see today you removed all of my contribution. Its really sad for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backrec (talk • contribs) 21:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding commercial links to Wikipedia pages, including talk pages, is deprecated on wikipedia and is considered a form of spamming. Incidentally, it wasn't just me that removed your edits. In future please try to add meaningful content to articles without adding commercial links and everyone will be a lot happier. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 21:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Response to questions on notability of All Events In City
The Youtube link is of CNBC YoungTurks, which is a very notable channel

The Hindu BusinessLine is very popular and notable newspaper in India and it has an exclusive coverage done for All Events In City. The Manthan Award page link has been corrected

Sarcasm hunter (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I will, as always, leave it to others to make the appropriate judgement. Telling me that something is notable means nothing without good evidence.  Velella  Velella Talk 16:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind consideration
Thanks for giving me a chance Velella :) I really appreciate it. I'll make sure I deserve it and I'll prove you that my article is notable :) again thanks and I'll let you know as soon as I'm finished updating, God Bless :) JfeOfficial07 (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)JfeOfficial07

Please you have to understand.
I've been trying to create an article about him because I know that a lot of people would actually know him this way, this is the start of what he's going to be...please, This is my first and last article, please have faith. See what happens in you consider this notable maybe you'll be surprised even if you think that this doesn't catch your satisfaction, have you ever felt down and desperate? i think everybody does, I know this sounds personal, but I think if you let this happen.. you can change a life of someone, you can make someone's life better, please have faith. And if actually happens, I'll make sure that you will be the second one I'll be thanking (first is God) please Velella, please give me a chance. this is a beginning for me and him. please. JfeOfficial07 (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)JfeOfficial07

I know now, thanks...
All my life I've met a lot of people, who would review my works, some of them agree, some of them don't... I've learned something that maybe, some people, people like you... don't agree about my work, it's okay. I respect, one of my mentors once said "Everyone has a taste, some are good, some are bad, but nevertheless, everyone has a right to be respected" I respect you Velella... thanks for the lesson... (BTW, I'm Jeremy Sosa...) JfeOfficial07 (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)JfeOfficial07


 * It is taste and it isn't judgement. Notability is defined in Wikipedia here. This article doesn't have it. It isn't my judgement. If I don't nominate it for deletion another editor will. It isn't notable - end of story.  Velella  Velella Talk 17:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes that's why I'm thanking you... :) you didn't judge I know that, because if you do, they will kick you out of here, you just did your job, I know, I went there.. I understand, I'm not mad, only a schizo would do that, only weak people, I'm just thanking you... ~ Jeremy Sosa (Jeremy Fitzgerald Evans) JfeOfficial07 (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)JfeOfficial07

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Zpeopleheart. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Luz Ayda, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Zpeopleheart (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I speedied it but it has already gone.  Velella  Velella Talk 09:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is it? It can't have been deleted by an admin that fast. I was working on the article and would have declined the speedy. Looks like you un-did your actions a time or two/.What happen to the article? Did it poof into tin air? Please explain?  Zpeopleheart (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I put a CSD tag on a full page of text. When the edit completed it had become a re-direct and I assume that this was the result on an edit conflict. When I revisited the re-direct having removed my CSD tag it was by then a redirect to an empty page. Somebody was working fast but it wasn't me !.  Velella  Velella Talk 10:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Koko Jones
Did you mean to prod instead of prod blp the article Koko Jones? I see sources in the article, so it fails the criteria for an unreferenced biography of a living person. It can still be proposed (once) for deletion as an uncontroversial deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The only reliable source confirms the existence of the person but nothing more so in that wider sense it is an unsourced BLP. I note that ScrapIronIV  has removed some of the more contentious and unsourced material. I will revisit it . Regards  Velella  Velella Talk  20:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am trying, and I hope I don't end up on the "wrong" side of the controversy - just trying to balance respecting the wishes of the subject, and sourcing. I am not making a personal statement.  Scr ★ pIron IV 20:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I too am trying to steer a careful way and your work seemed eminently helpful. Thanks  Velella  Velella Talk 20:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This Huffington post article makes it harder; looking at that source, the subject has voluntarily disclosed, and also asserts some notability. Her official website is also open about it, as is this interview. There are additional sources in a short google search that lend to her notability. World Music Report is one, and asserts her openness on the issue as well as add to notability. I am not certain we are doing the right thing here, acting on the word of an an editor claiming to be the subject.  Scr ★ pIron IV 21:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah well.. I raised the issue and if that's the answer then that's the answer. I have no special involvement here and am not making a case for special treatment here. If it stays, it stays. Thanks for your work anyway. 21:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Prod of Koko Jones
You need to go back and explain why you feel the article should be deleted. Type in your reason after "concern=" If you don't the prod will be declined. -- GB fan 20:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Contributor to Travelyaari
Please explain why you have tagged my contributions for a speedy deletion. I have put the reference of the organization and have first hand knowledge of this organization. Aks vicky (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The version that I tagged had no references at all and included vast swathes of promotional guff as well as misleading information. The reason for tagging was the lack of notability. Please read WP:Notability before making any more posts of this nature.  Velella  Velella Talk 14:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:A7 has nothing to do with notability. The standard for A7 is a credible claim of significance, which doesn't require any references. A statement such as "Travelyaari.com is the largest online bus booking portal headquartered at Bangalore, India. With a network of over 2100 bus operators and 1,50,000 bus options per day on 45,000 routes, it has served over 100 million bus travellers till date" is by far sufficient. I recommend reading over the essay WP:A7M which states my general thoughts pretty well. --Appable (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
Hi Velella. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for José-R.Valles Calatrava, 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. Per WP:A1, "This excludes coherent Non-English material, and poorly translated material. If any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it, A1 is not appropriate. Thanks! Appable (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Revert on WP:COIN
Just wondering why you performed this revert on WP:COIN? - sandgemADDICT yeah? 06:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies - fat finger syndrome I suspect. Certainly not intended . Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 09:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

David Rosenberg
I just reviewed the references, and only kept the relevant ones, pages which mention David Rosenberg's implication in the project. He is an art curator so there will be no post on TMZ about him to show his "star status", but he is mentioned by every institution he worked with. Please check the notability of Palais de Tokyo, Maison Rouge etc, you will see that to work for these, you must be "notable". In French, art curator is "commissaire d'exposition". Besides, for almost all his publications the ISBN is mentioned, I can't see what kind of reference could be linked to that to prove his notability. Could you please review the page once again ? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anh.tamy (talk • contribs) 11:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the work that you are doing, but, for the record, the article is still far far too long. There would be a much greater chance of success with a much shorter highly focussed article with relatively few high quality references. All the name checking is very off-putting and make it look just like a puff piece. I won't revisit it - I prefer to let others make the judgement call as it avoids accusations of harassment or poor judgement. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk  12:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

.

Thank you
...for this thoughtful elaboration. Given the attribution at the top of the contributions, as well as some of the phrasing, I suspect the piece is original research. But if the contributor is willing to cobble together their sources, great. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5933:D286:AF4C:C919 (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Snehapriya Roy
As you mentioned that the article Snehapriya Roy lacked notability and nominated it for deletion, well I have tried to improve the article by providing other sources and regarding the existence of the article on wikipedia, I would like to add that this young woman is India's official representative for the upcoming Miss Intercontinental Beauty pageant, which is one of the most publicized beauty pageants in the world with Miss World and Miss Universe. For your satisfaction you can visit the page List of beauty contests and the Miss Intercontinental official website on the page I created. I read you are an environmentalist so you may find it boring but for a beauty pageant enthusiast like me its very interesting and it would also prove to be helpful for other beauty pageant enthusiast in India. The young woman has won the national level beauty pageant in India defeating 33 women from India as well from overseas, all the links are mention on the page. I am kinda new to wikipedia as you can see, so I would be glad if you help me and guide me to understand it better and create better articles. Thanks for reviewing my article. Zack Martin 2000 (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with what I may or may not consider interesting. It has everything to do with what Wikipedia considers notable. Please read the relevant guidance and you will see what is required. In summary, it needs references from robust and reliable sources independent of the subject. The refs that you have quoted fall a long way short of that standard IMHO.  Velella  Velella Talk  14:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiLove
 Hello Velella, SecretName101 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. SecretName101 (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Catieinsightdesigns
Hello, Velella ~

Thanks for the heads up that Gregory W. Haggquist's is marked for deletion.

My situation is complicated.

The text was written, I assume, by Dr. Haggquist's staff. The company I'm working for said "Here, publish this on Wikipedia". So I just plonked the text on there, not really knowing what I was doing. Then, after reviewing more of Wikipedia's how-to articles, I realized my error and moved it back to Draft status.

The trouble is, Dr. Haggquist's marketing staff apparently sent out a campaign while it was in Draft status. So a bunch of people went to look for the article, and it wasn't there. So I re-published it.

For what it's worth, Dr. Haggquist is the inventor of the next generation of high-tech athletic performance fabric, which is called 37.5 Technology. Essentially, it's the next Gore-Tex. I'm working on that article even as we speak. And this article is as well-referenced as I can make it. If it is accepted, the plan is to link (perhaps redirect?) Dr. Haggquist's article to that one.

Is there any way I can solve this dilemma?

Thanks so much for your help.

~ Catie Catieinsightdesigns (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Catie, your honesty is commendable and makes it somewhat easier to make an honest response. Wikipedia does indeed provide a managed way to get articles into Wikipedia through a review process and this is articles for creation process which you have used for two other draft articles. This enables articles to be drafted in a protected environment and only released into user space after review. Unfortunately it is also very easy to simply create an article with Draft at the front end which has none of the templates associated with the review process and it is equally easy simply to move a draft article into main-space using the move command. The AfD process is there to help, but may articles are created by other means. Once an article is in main space it can be edited changed or nominated for deletion by anyone and not even the whole marketing department can stop that happening. I think a redirect at Gregory W. Haggquist to  37.5_TM_Technology, when it exists, sounds good. Please read the notability guidance first because that is the critical issue in getting Wikipedia articles accepted and retained. In one of your earlier edits (they are all available in the history) you query why anybody can just create an article, and the answer is because that is the great strength of Wikipedia. If it were not so Wikipedia would be written by marketing departments and would be a very very pale and overblown shadow of what it is now. You may wish to infer from that my opinion of marketing departments, but that is, as is said on Wikipedia, not a neutral point of view. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk  20:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your help.


 * One last quick question: When do I know a discussion is "closed", so that I know to definitively delete the artlcle? Or is that up to me? Thanks bunches, Catie Catieinsightdesigns (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If you are content to simply make Gregory W. Haggquist a redirect then you can do that by replacing the whole article with #REDIRECT Target article name (without the nowiki tags). However, I can't see a suitable candidate article to which a redirect can point. An alternative is to blank the whole article and replace it with and be sure to leave a very clear edit summary explaining what you are doing. You can also add a comment to the deletion discussion here noting that you have requested speedy deletion.
 * The final alternative is to do nothing and then one day soon the link to the article will turn from blue to red indicating that it has been deleted. Hope that this helps. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 17:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wonderful. You've been awesome -- I really appreciate your help.
 * Right now, the 37.5 article is in the queue to be approved. If it passes muster, I'll do a redirect, and then probably include the little bio on Dr. Haggquist as a subsection.
 * Once again, you've been REALLY helpful. And my respect for Wikipedia has just gone up about ten notches. What a terrific resource; am definitely going to participate more in the future after I've learned more myself.
 * (P.S. Ironically, I'm a marketer. Go figure...;-)
 * Warm regards, Catie


 * Apologies, being British has its downsides, the most obvious one being that Americans rarely recognise our irony when we write it. Yes you are in marketing which is what my earlier reply was trying to say without making the point too heavily. Obviously the touch was a little light!. There is a saying here (in Welsh) about "knocking the gatepost so that the gate will hear". Which means that you can convey a message to somebody by alluding to it or telling them something that they know already. But then they know that you know that they know. In this case I can  know that you are in marketing but as you don't wish me to know that, I can let you know my feelings about the impact of marketing on Wikipedia without hurting your feelings and hopefully, encouraging you to be a useful editor. Well that's the theory anyway. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk  22:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * LOL it's true, we dumb Yanks usually require the proverbial thwack upside the head with a blunt object. Comes from all of that yee-hawing at Indians and cows. Don't worry about hurting my feelings; I've enjoyed our conversation thoroughly, and hope to swap words again soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catieinsightdesigns (talk • contribs) 16:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Reason of Deletion
I saw you have put the deletion tag on the top of two pages which I had created. I'm continuously doing my level best to improve those pages. Don't put the deletion tags on my pages, its really sick. Khesrawkakakhail (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't sick. If you want time to work on your pages please create them as drafts using the article for creation process. That protects your work until they are ready for review. If you construct articles in main space and they are unreferenced, then they will be doomed to be deleted. That is how Wikipedia works.  Velella  Velella Talk  18:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Dear Velella
This page does not represent advertising or Company promotion. Rather this is an usual Wiki page like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adknowledge or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignite_Media_Group.

Can you please review your decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinku.ewu (talk • contribs) 18:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The page has been deleted so that I can no longer see it but my guess was that it didn't have a single reliable independent source of suitable standing to convince me that this was in any way notable. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 22:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of Tubeless Tyre Fitting and Repair
Hi Velella Sorry but as you will have guessed I am new to editing Wikipedia. Your link WP:NOTMANUAL states "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not." This suggests that the Fitting and Repair addition would be accepted if it were re-written in the style of an observed and documented process performed by a qualified bicycle mechanic or fitter. Please advise if this is true, or will there be another rule that it would fail that would cause you to revert? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maultby (talk • contribs) 13:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Written in the 3rd person as a series of factual statements such as "Because of the design of tubeless tires and the rim to which they are fitted, it is essential that the correct tools are used together with industry approved lubricating grease to avoid damage to either the tire of the rim " may well be acceptable.
 * This is all totally invented on my part, but it should give a view on how this sort of material can be presented without telling readers how to do a job. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 13:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. If I moved those paragraphs to Wikibooks would a link to that Wikibooks content be allowed in Wikipedia?--Maultby (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Not only allowed but welcomed (within reason!). It would look something like this but with an appropriate title substituted. The code required is regards  Velella  Velella Talk  17:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nairobi Sailcat
Hello Velella. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1), content (CSD A3),or significance (CSD A7) moments after they are created. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks..
 * I disagree. I read this article through (which was difficult enough) and even the text made not a single claim to notability. The subsequent appeal against deletion contains no material that meets or even comes close to establishing notability in Wikipedia terms. There is the AfC process for authors to bring their articles up to standard in a protected environment. Published in main space, articles are subject to the full rigours of review . There are very many articles on Wikipedia that fall woefully short of notability. Removing the below par articles is equally as important for the quality of Wikipedia as getting articles to WP:GA.  Velella  Velella Talk  08:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I agree with you, so I sent Nairobi Sailcat to AfD. Thanks for all your work keeping Wikipedia free of below par articles. JMHamo (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I always have in mind the difficult line between not biting new editors, allowing a little rope, providing advice and eventually drawing the line and opting for a speedy delete. I have no problem with other editors telling me if they think I have got it wrong and in many ways having other pairs of eyes watching activity can only be a good thing. But on this occasion I think I was right and I support your decision to take it to AfD. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 17:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Gebauer & Griller
Hi, the entry about Gebauer & Griller is not an advertising. Is a worldwide company which is already published in the German Wikipedia and therefore I would like to publish the English counterpart. Thanks and best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gebauer & Griller (talk • contribs) 11:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ...and I hope my edits reflect that. It is your user-name that is the issue here - it doesn't conform to Wikipedia's guidance on user-names. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 11:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

False Talk Page Post
Hello. You added to my talk page a speedy deletion notice of a talk page that isn't mine and I simply notified him of the speedy deletion tag I placed on his user page. Could you clear this up? Thanks, Dat GuyWiki (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is a "feature" of Twinkle. . Because User:The-Address put promotional text on his/her user page,you quite correctly tagged the user page for deletion. This automatically put a message on the user talk page. However User:The-Address also put the same promotional stuff on his/her talk page which I tagged for speedy deletion using Twinkle. Twinkle sees your Username as the first entry and considers the page belongs to you. I think we could call this a "bug" and perhaps I should report it.  Velella  Velella Talk 18:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion notice Khesrau Hayat Kakakhel
Hello Vella! I had removed a deletion tag from the page Khesrau Hayat Kakakhel, which you have reverted. I want to know how to get rid of this or how to promote the page. I want your help in regard. The page is about a young and new artist of Pakistan, whose biography must be written over here. So Ghizeri did the same in first time. Thank you. AQHayat (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove deletion notices. Doing this is likely to get you blocked. The biography does not have to be written if he is not notable. I see no evidence of any notability here which I why I tagged it. This looks very much like a semi-fantasy auto-biography and I would strongly advice against continuing to try and create such an article. Writing your own biography is very strongly discouraged on Wikipedia.  Velella  Velella Talk 20:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Spiritual Ecology page issues
Hello Velella, Thank you for leaving me a message regarding your changes to the Spiritual Ecology article. In your message to me you wrote: "you recently removed some content from Talk:Spiritual ecology without explaining why." I did leave an explanation, but apparently it didn't come through. (I am not very savvy with Wikipedia, so it is likely my mistake.) The explanation I gave in the summary section was that the material was copied from Wikipedia and posted onto the Spiritual Ecology website, and that's why the content matches perfectly—NOT because there was a copyright violation. The Wiki article predated the SpiritualEcology.org website.

The reason that I tried to undo Elhugheszete's flag for the article being non-neutral was because I am disputing it. I am a colleague of the person who created the SpiritualEcology.org website and also helped develop the Spiritual Ecology wiki. The wiki page existed first. It was created in 2004 and later developed by Leslie Sponsel, who is one of the founder's of the concept of "spiritual ecology". The wiki was developed much further in 2012 when a community of authors and scholars came together to create a book about the topic. Leslie Sponsel was consulted as the wiki page was developed. The scholarship associated with the wiki page and the SpiritualEcology.org community are connected. A year after the wiki page was developed, SpiritualEcology.org (which represents this community of authors and scholars) copy and pasted the Wikipedia article onto their webpage: http://spiritualecology.org/about-spiritual-ecology. That is why the text matches perfectly.

After your action today, the article for Spiritual Ecology is now completely blocked and is flagged for copyright violation. Did you report a copyright violation? Can you help me to resolve the lingering issues?

First, there is no copyright infringement. I work for the organization that publishes SpiritualEcology.org, so I can report on behalf of this org that the material is Creative Commons. That seems like the best next step to remove the block from the page that is there currently. Any other suggestions?

Second, I would like to figure out how to correctly dispute the neutrality issue. I have no idea how to do this in a way that doesn't create more issues.

Thank you for your vigilance, Michelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by FunkyWagon23 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the first place to visit is donating copyright which provides all the background to donating copyright. At present the source document and this article are almost identical and without the copyright being donated, it is unlikely that the copyright violation notice will be removed. Without such donation the material cannot be used or closely paraphrased. For clarity's sake, the web-site has a clear copyright notice at the foot of the page severely restricting re-use. Perhaps what is more important is that neither you nor anyone else "owns" the content here and the article is seriously unbalanced, lacking contrary or critical views. I personally have serious doubts about the notability of this concept since all the quoted sources seem to be complementary to the subject and I could not see any truly independent views such as perhaps from the mainstream science of ecology. My view, and it is only my view, is that this article is at significant risk of deletion.  Velella  Velella Talk  23:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for both of your responses:

Regarding your message on the Talk page of Spiritual Ecology: "In that case can you please point out the attribution sentence on the web-site acknowledging the source as required by the Wikimedia foundation. If you can conclusively demonstrate that this is indeed a copy-back and that the material is properly acknowledged on the web-site, then the copyright violation will be removed promptly Velella  Velella Talk   23:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)" I have been searching for a page on Wikipedia that explains the attribution that you mention above: "the attribution sentence on the web-site acknowledging the source as required by the Wikimedia foundation."I cannot find any instructions or guidelines. Do you have a link to a page that explains the policy? Thanks.--FunkyWagon23 23:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FunkyWagon23 (talk • contribs)


 * Try this link where it says "Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. "". Hope this helps.  Velella  Velella Talk  00:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 01:20:51, 16 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Lizlehrer
Thank you so much for your help. I added an article about Dr. Grinspoon from Kirkus, an article where he was profiled in medipx, and an article he wrote in The Sober World. Is that what you had in mind, or something else? Thank you again, Liz Lizlehrer (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Liz

Lizlehrer (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

20:06:35, 16 December 2015 review of submission by Rhadamanthus17
Hello - I took a look at this article, and added a little more documentaion of notability. Since this doctor has a book being released by a major commercial publisher on a current national issue, one that has already been reviewed by Kirkus Reviews (documentation is in article) and his previous activism has made national newspapers (including for example the Molly Ivins column added to the text) he would seem to pass the criterion for notability.

Thank you for considering this request.


 * Sorry, but I don't see it. A book that has not yet been published and a reviewer who reviews work by Peter Grinspoon but makes no comment about the person himself, does not convey notability in my book. However, having reviewed a draft article, I prefer to leave it to others to take the subsequent views. This avoids bias and is a more transparent process. It also saves you the effort of reminding me when the next version is ready ! Regards  Velella  Velella Talk  20:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: Deletion Warning for Glen Nelson (businessman)
Greetings,

I am new to Wikipedia and working to improve my article titled "Glen Nelson (businessman)"

Prior to writing, I had read the wiki articles on other CEO's of companies, particularly in the high end commercial, and residential real estate industry. I also have notified Mr. Nelson about the proposed deletion and he is working on providing other sources that I may list as references for this article.

I request that recommendations be made for removal of content instead of removal of the article. Meaning, perhaps we can work together to remove specific content while keeping content that Wikipedia deems appropriate.

I have spent long hours creating this article based on my personal interview of Glen Nelson in addition to other notable businessmen in the real estate industry. I am involved in the industry and I interview some of the industry.

I really would be appreciative if we could just remove what is not appropriate and leave what is.

Warm Regards, Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavLDS9 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't what is in the article, it is what is missing. I did some work tidying up the article to see what it looked like when structured better hoping that I might find real evidence of notability. In the end I found none. What Wikipedia requires is independent, reliable and well known sources (national newspapers, magazines, Television etc.) mentioning the subject of the article in a considered way (i.e not just a name check). I found no such references, and without notability an article fails. A better way to make progress might be to copy the current version and start a new article using the article for creation process which protects an article in gestation from deletion. This might give you time to find suitable references. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk  22:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Ueutyi. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, We are here to not just prove but also improve, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Ueutyi (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Um ? A little more explanation would help. I simply tagged it for speedy deletion. I guess Twinkle also marks it as reviewed in the sense that I would have needed to review it to judge it worth nomination for deletion. What then does "un-reviewing" it do. Should I now forget what I read ? Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 00:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Benn Jordan (2nd nomination)
I reverted your last edits because the SPA notices had been the work of a vandal originally. Due to the use of dynamic addresses IP users seldom legitimately qualify for SPA templates, and other log-in users in that discussion who had been tagged had editing histories that proved the tags wrong. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  13:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I noted your revert but decided to let things lie in already very muddy waters. For the record 88.194.149.117 isn't a "vandal" in the sense that this IP address has not had any warnings and is not part of a blocked range. Whilst it may be true that this is one of many IP addresses used by an editor who elsewhere has been shown to be a vandal, in the case, without some other evidence we must assume good faith. I have no problem with  inappropriate tags being removed and warnings given. I do have a problem with blanket reversion of additions to discussion pages, whoever does it. In truth some of the tags were valid but some were not. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk  17:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)