User:Velella/Archives/Archive 8

This talk page contents prior to 24th January 2014 have been archived.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)

Akidjoh
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
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 .  Velella  Velella Talk 18:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Mayo college
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)

Amelia Does
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)

Albert Ellis
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?


 * It is my mind to request that you be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Re-factoring another's comments, and on their own talk page too, is considered a serious breach of Wikipedia's guidelines. Can you give any rational explanation?  Velella  Velella Talk 09:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 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

 * 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
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
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
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)
 * Because to any uninvolved person, the banner appears to make a threat against a person - in this case the Captain of the French team.  Velella  Velella Talk 10:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Q-go
Hi. You nominated 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. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 16:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Query
Hi, why did you give this IP a second "final warning"? Was it a Huggle malfunction or something? HJ Mitchell &#124;  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
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
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
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)


 * Replied on your talk page. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 23:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Stepan Chapman
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
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
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)
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
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&#39;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&#39;s sympathy, then I shall remain a I child forever. (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there any chance of having an English translation please so that I may respond ? Thank you.  Velella  Velella Talk 20:43, 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 .  I also read Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution guidelines, which state that such requests for blocking as the one you threatened to make  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 ?
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
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
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
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
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)

Tropical year
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)

Run's House
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
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 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
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!
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
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
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
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.
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
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"
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
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
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
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
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
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

Articles for deletion/Milorganite
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&amp;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.

deleting anecdotes on chloramphenicol ?
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?
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.

165.248.247.181
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)

DABMENTION
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
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
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
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
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 ".17". Not sure how that was supposed to update an athlete's most recent performance ?  Velella  Velella Talk 21:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
NorthAmerica1000 05:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you...
...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"
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
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
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
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
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
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!

 * Thanks - at least I'm keeping Google in business !  Velella  Velella Talk 16:31, 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 ==


 * 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
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
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 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
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
It looks as though the discussion about 1 World Music Festival needs to be reinitiated, given the "no concensus" result at 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
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
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
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
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
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
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

 * 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)

Draft:Ben Fletcher (comedian)
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
Hello. 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. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with. 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
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.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Summer PhD
"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. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Take the thread off your homepage and I'll take the comment off mine. Why on earth you added an open debate into a grudge list on your user page is highly questionable and dubious. Remove it. - SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You removed the link. Another editor restored it, saying your reasons did not apply. I agree. You apparently do not, but refuse to explain how either one applies. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Undid revision...
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)