User:Velella/Archives/Archive 5

Minor Edits
Please do not mark edits that change the content of an article as minor edits like you did in the cooking article, thank you. 203.213.75.70 (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood me, at no point did I dispute that the nutrients in fruit and vegetables are destroyed and/or eluted during cooking. Please do not insult people they by claiming they are misinformed or uninformed just because you disagree with the edit that they made. I was not telling you what to do I was merely asking you to please follow the Wikipedia guidelines when is to comes to marking edits as minor. If you unsure of what these guidelines are you can find them here WP:MINOR. The destruction and elution of nutrients is already mentioned in the preceding paragraph, I have elaborated slightly and incorporated the information about the vitamin C for the sake of brevity. If you think there has been something I have left out please add it or let me know. 203.213.75.70 (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK
Thanks for nominating an article to DYK. As you can see at T:TDYK, you'll need to expand the article a bit further before we can promote it. Ucucha 00:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is now a little longer (420 words), if you wanted to take another look. Thanks.  Velela  Velela Talk 20:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. It's actually already on its way to the Main Page and will go there in about four hours. Ucucha 20:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know problem
Hello! Your submission of Bulbine bulbosa at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! (Note: I always leave approvals to others.) Art LaPella (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Now expanded and significantly longer.  Velela  Velela Talk 12:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's now long enough, and it passes the DYKcheck test, except for the R5 stub problem. Others will make a more subjective evaluation. Art LaPella (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure about that - it hasn't been a stub for a while now ? No big deal, I'll leave it to the arbiters!  Velela  Velela Talk 21:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Anaerobic digestion
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Anaerobic digestion/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Skype
You might note that at least one of your recent edits also introduced some extraneous text around some numerical characters. This may be due to a combination of your browser and Skype trying to identify and highlight telephone numbers. Thank you. --Rumping (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Teifi Coracles
The information about the names was originally entered by an anon in the coracle article on the 7th May. The anon seems to have inside information, but unfortunately gave no citations. I haven't been able to confirm the information by searching the web. John Davies crops up a fair bit in connection with coracles, but not "his brother" Will. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Raw water
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Raw water, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 04:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the version I came across was vandalised to the point of being an incomprehensible attack page. It was deleted and then restored without the attack edits. --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 12:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Bangor, Gwynedd
(discussion moved to Talk:Bangor,_Gwynedd to seek wider views )  Velela  Velela Talk 21:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

my edit
Re: comment on my edits Dear Velela, Thank you for your attention. I want to give a solid rationale for some of my edits. Article: Ecosystem. The point is that paradoxically, in current literature there are no good definitions of ecosystem. Almost all definitions you can find in literature have logical defects. Usually they include in the text of the definitions other terms that in turn have to be defined. Often those terms are defined using the term 'ecosystem', so that the vicious circle take place. See some discusion in support at the site: http://blog.researchgate.net/masterblog/2220_New_Definition_of_Ecosystem

The paper that was added to the article has a UNIQUE definition that is simple, compatible with current knowledge and is free from the defect mentioned above. Thank you and kind wishes Mytilus (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Openstreetmap
Openstreetmap is linked from every single wikipedia article that has coordinates. For that reason and the fact that there are tens of other mapping resources for a given geographic location I don't see a need to have it listed within the article. Please ignore my edit summary reverting your revert - I hit the wrong button and didn't mean to tag it as vandalism. --Simple Bob (talk) 08:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks re: Whole wheat bread
Hi, I just wanted to thank you for the work you did to help fix the Whole Wheat Bread / Whole Wheat Bread (band) problem which I had mentioned on the Talk:Brown_bread page. Thanks and good job on the article stub. Fallendarling (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Pond aeration
I appreciate the attention that you have given to my recently posted Pond aeration page. This is my first stab at a Wikipedia entry, so I will gladly accept any help or suggestions. I apologize for the references, and have added ISBN numbers as well as some web links. Additionally, any wording and/or economizing of my writing and information is welcomed so long as it does not detract from the content of the article.

That being said, I do not think that much of my information is completely misguided as you seem to suggest to MrOllie: "There is a great deal which is just plain wrong and only makes sense if the reader assumes that this only applies to amenity ponds. Even then it is still wrong." While I do not claim that the science behind my writing is flawless, I do not believe it to be grossly inaccurate either. For instance, this type of aeration is not limited simply to amenity ponds, as oftentimes stormwater management ponds require aeration in order to prevent eutrophication. Much of this is covered in the Pond Management Guidebook, which was deleted from the external links section. While I understand the deletion of some of the links provided, I believe that the Pond Management Guidebook, as well as the Copper Sulfate white paper are both legitimate, useful resources that can be helpful to those seeking information on this subject.

In addition, the majority of my information is cited, and while I appreciate any suggestions and/or criticism, if you are going to add or change any of my information, it may be helpful for you to add citations of your own. Lastly, I would contend that pond aeration is not limited to only seriously polluted or amenity ponds. It may be the most beneficial when employed in seriously polluted ponds, but it can technically be added to any pond. In other words, the process of aeration itself is not dependent upon the pond being seriously polluted. Trlabarge (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Fir Tex
Hi, I have re-written the article following comments in the AFD debate, please look at the new version, and change your vote if you feel that your concerns have been satisfied. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Wales
I have put the Wales article forward for GA status. It just needs tweaking, and maybe a heavy-handed swipe from outside to get it in place. I am writing to those who are constant contributors and defenders of Wales and Welsh articles, to not scream at me for doing this, but to help get the article through. If we fail, we fail, there is nothing wrong with that; but Wales should be a Good Article at least. Thanks FruitMonkey (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there
Thank you for notifying me. I have removed the speedy deletion tag from the Tim Stonock article - according to WP:CRIN, and by extension, WP:BIO, the cricketer is notable, having played a List A cricket match.

I also noticed there was a small amount of vandalism on the article, which I have since removed.

Hope all is well. Bobo. 20:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Weight loss effects of water
Hi,

I don't know if you're following Talk:Weight loss effects of water, but I've posted a request for clarification to you and the other critical editor there. Thanks. --greenrd (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Safrron stigmas crocus sativa.JPG
Dear Velella,

The picture you have uploaded as Safrron stigmas crocus sativa is for sure not of a Crocus sativus. I guess that it is of a Crocus cancellatus, another species which is cultivated for their corms, which are eaten by some populations of Asia Minor. But I am not sure... it could also be of a form of Crocus speciosus, another species of Asia Minor, which is cultivated for its beautiful flowers. Could you please let me know the location where you have taken this picture, so that I can confirm that it is Crocus cancellatus? Best botanic regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Please Assist Me
I am in need of some clarification with this whole Wikipedia thing...It is supposed to be a concensus is what I am told yet my edits have been deleted making it a monopoly of one persons thoughts. I made several "additions" to articles already posted on Wikipedia. I did not alter the existing articles but rather added a category that was not previously covered but was introduced by Wikipedia. Wikipedia talks about "water features...both man-made and natural, yet they do not go into any detail about the man-made aspects of these features. When you go to the articles on Brooks, Creeks and Streams...it is "ALL" about the natural aspects and does not even touch on the man-made side...how biased is that? Why can't their be a seperate section on those pages that just covers the man-made side of the feature? What harm is there? Yet it would satisfy a lot of people looking for that additional information.

I am being told by you that my opinion is an "American" version not viewed by the rest of the world but this is not correct. I am an international contractor and have installed water features in more than 47 countries around the globe. NO ONE is as advanced with landscape and water feature design as the America...that is a fact! That does not make us better than anyone else...it just means that for the vast majority of the world, our contributions are far more advanced. This is why people pay us tens of thousands of dollars to go to other countries and design and install water features...because there is NO ONE in that particular country capable of doing the work. The references I sited come from an international organization that has members from 52 world countries...it is clearly NOT an American version but a concensus of what the wprlds water feature contractors think. We specifically solicited every members opinion in these matters and debated the topics for years before these definitions were established!

I do not take personal offense in having you remove my additions but I do nto understand why anyone would want to show one side of a particular topic and not cover each possibility. Even Websters Dictionary has multiple definitions under each listed word...why would Wikipedia want to have just one version of a topic and not share as much valued information as possible with the world. There are hundreds of thousands of landscape contractors who would benefit greatly from knowing want the man-made characteristics are for these water feature types.

I just want to contribute anything I may have that may be of value.wburny —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wburny (talk • contribs) 18:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * wburny refers to Help desk and also posted to User talk:PrimeHunter. I work at the help desk but don't edit or know much about water features so I hope you will discuss with wburny. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, but...
This is good. However, a more descriptive reasoning would be helpful as it was not vandalism. I would suggest an edit summary with WP:ENGVAR in it :-) You should also advise the editor who made the editor about that policy when you do it.  Cheers ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Dwell Time
Thanks for rolling back the article. It's frustrating that the old content keeps getting brought back. Is there any way to prevent this from becoming an edit war? I'm adding some content, but everything I'm adding is verifiable and relevant, unlike the user who is being unreasonable with his edits.

Welsh Argentine
Hey Velella, I see you left a comment on the Welsh Wikipedians' notice board about the Welsh Argentine article. You may want to add your comment to the move discussion here. Thanks,--Cúchullain t/ c 14:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No Problem
As wikipedians, it is our responsibility to revert vandalism whenever we find it. You don't have to thank me for something I should have done anyway. Have a nice day!-- Piast 93  21:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
...for fighting vandalism in my user page. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

JamesBWatson (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Response
I've responded to the comment you left on my talk page. Sorry for taking so long. -- Piast 93  20:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

MBDA
Would you stop reverting the MBDA article to the version where HQ is Paris, France. The REGISTERED ADDRESS of MBDA Holdings SAS is in Paris, yes. However, this is NOT the company HQ. The corporate HQ has been, since 2nd February 2002, 11 Strand, London. It should also be noted that MBDA Holdings is, as the name suggests, a HOLDING company, which is there purely to facilitate the multinational actions of this company. Check the link I posted to the MBDA website (EADS is a shareholder, and is NOT MBDA), which states the corporate HQ is at 11 Strand, London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.35.235 (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now fixed up the article. Please read the WP guidelines - they do help.  Velella  Velella Talk 11:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ummmm
How was my contribution to that talk page un-constructive. Who is it for you to decide, isnt it for the said user? WatsonJamesB (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

WatsonJamesB
Is there a reason you restored the sock's bogus claims of being an admin? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I simply restored a your page blanking that had little in the way of edit summary to help. I have read your note at AIV and would concur but until its decided  my guess was that blanking a page didn't get us too far.  Reverting relevant sections that were misleading I would have supported. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk  11:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I was trying to avoid feeding the troll, but too late now. That character has had many guises, most of them variants on the admin's name. But posting stuff asserting he himself is an admin is going too far. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * He B indef'd now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
You and Krashlandon just saved me three reverts on my user page. Thanks so much! Keep up the great work! -- Gnowor TC 21:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome - I think it might be four now!  Velella  Velella Talk

Utility
I'm sorry, but I don't think my edit constituted vandalism, as it was made in good faith (i.e. in an attempt to improve the quality of the article, not the opposite). I made the mistake of first making an edit before explaining it in the talk page; I wrote the explanation in the talk page a few minutes later, but the edit had been reverted. I then repeated the edit, as I had given justification for it. If there's something else I need to do to legitimize my edit, please let me know. I will hold off on re-editing the article, obviously, but the problem I noted in the talk page needs to be addressed. 201.252.127.228 (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'm sorry for the trouble - this is my first time editing an article, and I totally glossed over the fact that I should explain my edit in the edit summary, besides using the talk page. Hopefully I'll get better at this! 201.252.127.228 (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit on Beau Tatchell speedy deletion contest template
Hello, this is in reference to this edit. The template was edited to better support the reason given by the editor (original creator of the page) that had placed the template. May I ask why you edited this to place the reason out of it's format? --ForgottenHistory (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't. Another editor was making or trying to make spurious edits at the same time resulting in edit conflicts. I simply copied the latest version I could salvage and pasted it back. Cut out the repetition etc. but left the two tags well alone. If a comment was lost, that is regretable but it was not lost from any intent on my part.  Velella  Velella Talk

Ahmed Johnson
The link I added is from cagematch.de, a site that has been used for several other wrestling articles here on this site. As far as I know, the other articles still use cagematch.de as an additional and verifiable source. 72.185.171.33 (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: CampusExplorer
Hello Velella. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of CampusExplorer, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Sources enough for A7. Prod or take to AfD if required.''' Thank you. Ged UK  19:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas eve
What am I wrong about? Christian holidays beginning at six o'clock? Jesus being born at night? His birth being celebrated at midnight mass? The Earth being round? Water being wet?-62.63.246.247 (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Provide a reputable reference for Jesus being born at night and it can stay. Until then it is just speculation.  Velella  Velella Talk 13:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean a reputable source for christians believing this? Eeehhh, I do believe that's called the "Bible". And why don't you erase the entire paragraph, since it lacks references altogether? There is no reference saying that they celebrate the beginning of Christmas day, either. Nor that there are midnight masses in the mentioned churches. If you look to the left of the page, to the links to other language wikipedias, you'll notice that in a lot of languages Christmas Eve is referred to as "Christmas Evening", the "Good Night" or the "Holy Night". This is precisely what it is in the Christian tradition: the evening of Christmas, when Jesus was born. -62.63.246.247 (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Even the Bible, when used as a reference still needs to be quoted. There is much that people "know" is in the Bible that isn't. So, for example, Matthew 2 has the Magi visiting by night. Luke 2 has the shepherds woken at night and Jesus borne in a manger but no mention of being born at night. Now my knowledge of the Bible is probably less complete than it might be so if you can find and insert an appropriate reference, as I noted above, it can stand.  Velella  Velella Talk  14:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Demographics of Kenya
Can I please request a mediator for this article then? This information is totally inappropriate and unsourced for Kenya and I am very uncomfortable with the reasoning and ideological basiss for its inclusion. Please let me know how I can request a mediator (you can see in the discussion page that these things have been hashed and rehashed). 65.96.74.249 (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)