User:Velella/Archives/Archive 14

Knights Templar

Adding citation gives of an Unknown Error

templeofosiris.tk

Osirian Knight (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably due to the tk domain Osirian Knight (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

More likely because of the addition of text with no reliable independednt source.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   07:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Any snippet code you suggest to debug such an issue so I can properly add the site Citation? Osirian Knight (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Sigh....... What you are trying to add has no evidence of any notability. Please read WP:GNG before doing any more edits. No amount of coding or snippets will make it any more acceptable.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   07:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like im building a fresh page. I'll use the new wiki page as a citation

Thank you this helps, The issue is being resolved.

Dominic LaCavera Jr. Grand Master (Pro tem)

Osirian Knight (talk) 07:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

This is regarding Rishabh H Puri Article

Hi,

You have nominated Rishabh page for deletion. Tyhe reason you have mentioned there that the reference are about self promotion. I don't think so those are for self promotion. Please reconsider your step.

Also take a look at this https://books.google.co.in/books?id=jEFmDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Rishabh+Puri,%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6gdufwc7fAhWNknAKHereCSYQ6wEIKTAA#v=onepage&q&f=false he has done so much & also working in entermain industry as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.234.209 (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Since this is the first Wikipedia edit from this IP address, may I assume that you do actually have a username and are editing whilst signed out? In which case perhaps you could confirm your user-name and you relationship to the subject of the article. Thank you  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the Omega Recording Studios Page

Hello Velella,

Good Afternoon! I was wondering if you could let me continue to edit the Omega Recording Studios page? I am new to the Wiki editor and and taking some time to learn it. I will be adding sources for all of the information I have put up, but it takes time! Can you please revert the edit you did so I can continue to work? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Springer (talk • contribs) 22:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Your contribution lacked any independednt and reliable sources. In addition it appeared to change a factual article into an advertisment for the studios with a great deal of promotional and peacock phrasing. It all strongly suggests that you have a personal interest in the studios or are being paid to "improve" the article. If you are really here to imrpove Wikipedia please take some time out over the next few weeks and months to steadily improve other articles, learn about Wikipedia conventions and avoid any promotional text.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Arundo donax

Thank you for your helpful edit to the above article. I am trying without success to locate "middle east Asia" in my world atlas. Is it in China? Thanks in advance for your help.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

It is a phrase used by most(?) many reputable Floras to designate the mostly Arabic states to the east of the mediteranean. State boundaries can be changeable but the concept of a large, typically dry area with hot to very hot summers and cold winters with low annual rainfall defines a large biome within which certain plant species are typically found.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   02:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a "Flora", nor is its readership restricted to those who read Floras. As the term "middle east asia" is unknown to most WP readers, would you please make a logical case for not employing the common term "Mideast" in its stead? Thanks.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, Wikipedia is not a flora, but most of the most reliable sources about plants are Floras. The term "Mideast" is not in use or understood by most English speakers outside of the US but "Middle East" is. Because Wikipedia endorese all common variants of English, "Middle East" is an accepted use and does accord with the reliable Floras. To avoid confusion I have linked the term in the article.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   04:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Andrey Ostrovsky

This was far from ready to be moved to main space. Half of it was unreferenced and half the refs there were did not even mention the person in question. Please be more careful. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Doc James I disagree. I say that in the context of a great deal of admiration and regard for your editing , especially on medicine and related topics. In this case, my searches confirmed that this person did indeed hold the position claimed and I was satisfied on that ground alone that the individual was notable. I was very concerned about the vires of the contributor and I flagged that on the editors talk page. However, I was content that the article described a notable person and the article included some references demonstrating that. I would wholly agree that overall the referencing was poor, but not so poor to give rise to concerns about notability. I see so many "notable" article about evanescent "celebrities"; boy-bands in Japan, girl-bands in Korea, winners of very minor beauty contests, 14year old who once appeared on TV and many many more in the same mould, that an article about a person whose reputation might last longer than 12 months was welcome. At new article review I find myself rejecting so many very poor Drafts, that it was welcome to review one that actually seemed to add value to Wikipedia. My aim is to improve Wikipedia and I believe that even a poor article about a notable individual is much to be preferred than a good article about a non-entity. I would like to hope that you might agree with me. Best wishes. Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   01:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I was not questing the notability of the individual. More that fact that the article was simple so poorly referenced. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

On the subject of the Spike Viper Draft Page

"You may have many references, but none of them convey any notability. In mainspace, this article would be an immediate target for deletion. What is exactly that you are trying to do? In the absence of any clarity about your intentions, even this draft may be at risk of deletion for misues of Wikipedia as a web-host. Please explain"

Dear Velella,

Me and my partner Jam_Bam_52 have read over your request and have answers to your questions you left on

1. REDIRECT talk page of our article.

What we are trying to do with our Wikipedia page is to create a source in the form of a wiki page for information about our favorite "web host" Spike Viper. From there we collaborated with several other contributors and Kobe himself to find and categorize all the information into an encyclopedia-like page for him. In the criteria of notability, we believed that Kobe had met the criteria of "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Mainly the interesting or unusual part of the quote from the Wikipedia notability page for people. We believed that he had met that criteria because he had ran a popular Minecraft server, and has been affiliated with the alt-right. On the topic of creditable citations we have had secondary source interviews with people listed in our citations. If you would like us to link to those interviews we will gladly comply.

Thank You, The Contributors of the Spike Viper Wikipedia page BMO4744 (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Notability on Wikipedia is defined at the general notability guidelines This requires that articles are supported by several reliable and indepedent sources. Your article has none of these, hence my belief that it is neither notable nor likely to survive a deletion discussion. This Draft is simply not what Wikipedia is about. I would strongly recommend finding another server which is happy to host such material. I don't believe that Wikipedia will continue to provide this service and deletion may be sudden and abrupt.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   04:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, we will be moving to a new source by Wednesday. BMO4744 (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Do you have a problem with me? I try to create my user page... and my nickname is DIIAANN (Dian is my real name) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DDIIAANN (talk • contribs) 01:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem at all, I was offering advice on your talk page. I hope it was helpful.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   01:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Maaaaaatttttteeeeee

Also nearly all of the UFC fighter stats on here are one fight short of the real MMA records. Can you please change Rose Namamjunas’ record to 9-3 as that is the correct information. Checkout UFC.com or sherdog.com Wikipedia information is pretty unreliable and useless.

Cheers. Yours truly, guy who doesn’t self obsess over Wikipedia pages 👌🏻 MoistGavin94 (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC) MoistGavin94 (talk) 12:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

No.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   02:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

HI

I understand why you had to remove the part of the page about the legend of the burger. There is no solid evidence and it is just kind of a local joke. As I go I am trying to find good sources for the information that we put. As you can tell we have already been able to cite some of our posts. I removed any of my skeptical work and/or info I am not able to back. Please let us fill the page with the info that we know. Guten Tag! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odes 69 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

In general, most editors are going to turn a blind eye to non-controversial edits about towns and cities, but controversial or unusual assertions must be sourced and any people listed should already have their own Wikipedia page (please see WP:PEOPLE for more on this). I am a bit concerned about the use of the pronoun "we" in your edit above. Who exactly are we? Guten Abend.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   07:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Fibit

Feel free to change the article back to what you think was the last good version and I won't change it PlaystationCup (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

So magnanimous. If you ever able to return, it would be great if you could act as part of the constructive community that characterises the great majority of Wikipedia editors. It didn't need me to revert your edit, the community stepped in.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   02:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Queen Mary University of London

Kindly point out which is a benign version, please note that all my work are cited and factual. With no opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sg.outside (talk • contribs) 11:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect case of vandalism : UCL academy

Dear, Velella,

I find it quite bad-mannered for you to mock me about my double deficit dyslexia publicly but I digress. I can clearly understand why you find my edits to be mendacious and believe my edits are vandalizing Wikipedia, but the fact of the matter is that I have been authorized by the IT manager to update the new construction contracts that have been outdated since the start of this year. I would gladly supply you the contracts and the evidence if you would allow me to. My colleges and I find it highly unprofessional and quite lewd about the comments you made about us, but this is the internet and people tend to say what they want. I would highly appreciate if you could allow my team to continue our work, without us being flagged for "vandalism" if you have any inquiries feel free to email me at my email [email protected]

Kinds regards Mike Bradly MiltonYa (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Please post a diff so that we can actually agree what is being discussed. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   04:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

After some investigation I have found the answer. You are, of course a sockpuppet of KH-1 -you should have said.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Quite absurd calling me a sock puppet of KH-1, could you please evaluate? MiltonYa (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, not a sock, just a vandal  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   02:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

That was a fast response

You said, and I quote, 'without adequately explaining why' When I did explain why, a simple sentence about the information being biased, manipulated and unofficial. The article text that I edited even started with the phrase "fraudulent election". According to who is it fraudulent? The international observers? Here or here maybe? or how about this?

Seriously, if you are gonna keep the biased manipulation then at least give another reason. Use your eyes please, not all of us are like you that don't read and just play like an automated biased bot.

That "not all of us are like you ..." I take as a compliment. When I see a block of text removed sourced by, amongst others, the BBC and replaced with much more dubious text with what appears to be a very partisan political agenda, then your changes were indeed made "without adequately explaining why". It appears that other editors agree with me.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   04:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Indodax Paid Editing

Hello Velella, in regards of the impression I've made in my edit of Indodax page, I'm not expecting any compensation for my action. I must inform you that English is not my main language and it might impact the impression I've made. I'm a crypto enthusiast and hope to create more page about crypto especially in southeast asia. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPhydra (talk • contribs) 10:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Pure, White and Deadly

Dear Velella, A note to thank you for removing the previous comments regarding the notability and referencing of the article on PW&D. I'm very grateful both to you and to SlimVirgin for your editorial work, and shall be writing to thank her separately. Michael Yudkin (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Michael Yudkin You're very welcome - it is much more satisfactory ensuring that something of real note and value to society gets a proper article to balance all those that appear to have little value (beauty contest winners, K-pop bands, Manga, "Celebrity" game show winners etc.) . A couple of things occurred to me on re-reading. The first long section which summarises the book, is quite daunting in its length and complexity. It also contains significant amount of text on underlying nutritional history and principles. Some of this might stand alone in a separate section to allow the summary to be significantly shortened although, I have to confess, I am not sure quite how this might be achieved. The second thought that I had would be to cross reference this to other articles which deal with sugar, diets, coronary heart disease etc by inserting pertinent sentences such as "Yudkin in 1972 published "Pure White and deadly" which foresaw ............" plus suitable references. It would be prudent to approach this gently - it isn't wise to look as though your edits are seeking to promote a book or increase book sales, but the significance of the research and the book do justify wider inclusion in other related articles. Best of luck.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   00:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Velella, Many thanks both for your kind remarks about the article and for your suggestions. Like you, I don't at the moment quite see how the stand-alone section would work, but I shall certainly give more thought to what you say and also discuss it with my co-author. About your second suggestion, are there particular articles you had in mind in which a reference to PW&D might be inserted? Best wishes, Michael Yudkin (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Velella, My co-author and I would like to be able to circulate the PW&D article, which has been so helpfully edited both by you and by SlimVirgin, among professional groups such as nutritionists, diabetologists and cardiologists. But we are not sure how to proceed without inadvertently violating Wikipedia rules. Is it OK to send copies of the article to professional organisations and journals, or to individuals we know, with a request to bring it to the attention of their members/readers/colleagues so that they can access it on Wikipedia? We should be very grateful for your guidance here. The point is, of course, that the article discusses an ongoing issue of great importance to public health, and we'd like people in the professions I've mentioned to be aware of this issue - which many of them still aren't. (In case there's any doubt about my motives, I'll just add that I don't get royalties from the book, which has now been out some time.) Best wishes Michael Yudkin (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Michael Yudkin I can think of no reason why you, or anyone else should not circulate Wikipedia content to anyone provided that the source of the information is acknowledged. Alternatively, you could send a link to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure,_White_and_Deadly . Wikipedia is all about making information freely available and I can see no problem with what you propose. If you could encourage others to find sources and references for all the main statements in the article, that would be an added bonus!

Re your previous questions, I will get back to you when I have had a chance to give it more thought. Real life is a bit hectic at present. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reassurance about circulating Wikipedia content. Concerning your request for sources and references, I've looked at the two instances of "Citation needed", which occur in the first paragraph of the "Reception" section of the article. I've now given citations to the Finnish, German and Italian editions of PW&D. I don't have a copy of the Swedish edition, and although I do have a copy of the Japanese edition I don't read Japanese and unfortunately there's no text in the Roman alphabet which gives either the title of the book or the name of the publisher. I am not clear about the "Citation needed" at the end of that paragraph, because the sentence it's referring to is just an introduction to the text below (under "Transition"). The "Transition" text gives a fuller account of the events summarised in that sentence, and consequently we thought that it was neither necessary nor appropriate to footnote the introductory sentence. Best wishes Michael Yudkin (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Velella, I'm sorry to bother you, but the co-author of the Pure, White and Deadly article, Jack Winkler, and I are wondering whether someone in the Wikipedia community can help with a problem we've run into. As you know, we hope the article will be of value as a contribution to public health, and we'd like to interest health professionals in it. The article has been up since 18 January. But if you put "Pure, White and Deadly" into Google, the article doesn't appear (unless you click - at the bottom of page 15 of the Google results - a link which promises "some entries very similar to the 151 already displayed.") Instead, you get mostly book-sellers offering second-hand copies of the book. On the other hand if you search for "Wikipedia Pure,White and Deadly" the article is among the first of the entries on the Google page. But the trouble is that many of the people we're trying to make aware of the article may not bother to include "Wikipedia" as a search term when they look for Pure, White and Deadly, and Wikipedia's vital contribution to disseminating information will then be vitiated. It occurred to us that among the many experts within the community there's likely to be someone who will know how to ensure that the article comes up early in a Google search even if the term "Wikipedia" is not included. Would you mind very much looking into this? Best wishes Michael Yudkin (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I suspect that Google's algorithms are opaque to almost every member of the human race, and I don't think this is a Wikipedia issue. When I search using Google on "Pure, White and Deadly" the Wikipedia article on "John Yudkin" appears third and the article on the book appears 4th in the list - the first three are all paid for advertisements. Using Bing, the two Wikipedia pages are first and third, and using DuckDuckGo they are fourth and fifth. This is from New Zealand. Clearly the search engines are indexing the Wikipedia pages. Have you tried flushing the caches on your browsers and deleting all old cookies. I would expect that you have both been doing extensive research on the topic which may have cluttered up your caches? I will switch to a UK VPN in a moment and try that just to see if it is a UK specific issue. Apologies also for the delay in responding, I missed seeing your addition. To grab my attention if you add {{u|velella}} at the start of your message and sign it at the end with four tides, that will generate an alert on my page. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Michael Yudkin Searching from the UK has exactly the same results as searching in NZ, just some of the adverts are different!.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   00:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Velella, this might be of interest to you. It's a news article and not MEDRS, but it may point to sources you can use. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, that looks very useful - but I suspect I will have to give up on DYK - I am in the wrong country, with the wrong books and the weather just too hot. Perhaps I can find the time to get it to GA over the next few months. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   02:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of DYK, but of generally bringing it to MEDRS compliance. If you're having difficulty accessing sources, you can apply via the Wikipedia Library. They can arrange for subscriptions to medical journals. And for individual articles, there's always WP:RX. People at RX are extremely helpful. I've only rarely not been able to find a source after asking there. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

velella Dear Velella, I'd like to explain why I included a link to the PWD article within the article on JY. As you know, Jack Winkler and I hope that the PWD article will make a contribution to what is a really important public-health issue these days, given an ever-rising incidence of obesity and diabetes. As you also know, a search on Google for "Pure, White and Deadly" usually doesn't bring up the PWD article; what it does bring up is a link to the JY article which you can click on. The link includes the sentence "He gained an international reputation for his book Pure, White and Deadly (1972), which warned that the consumption of sugar . . ." I thought that if I added a reference to the PWD article immediately after the date 1972, that reference would appear if someone was searching on Google for PWD, and so it would be a good way of helping those who are looking for the PWD article to find it. I notice that you have left the reference to the PWD article which I put just below the PWD subheading within the JY article. Thank you for that. If you could see your way to restoring it at the earlier place as well (right after the 1972 date), that would be a great help. Many thanks and best wishes Michael Yudkin (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Michael Yudkin - In Wikipedia articles the use of instructions such as "see this artice;" is generally deprecated. It may be worth looking at the manual of style for Wikipedia for more on this (although it is quite a turged read. The convention is that links to other articles are always created using a wiki-link . Similarly where an article contains a synopsis, the main article is indicated using the construct {{main|Article name}} or {{see also|Article name}}. Giving instructions or adding comment adds very little and without the wiki-link readers have to enter the text themselves to find the article. None of this should affect the search engine performance. I guess the simple truth is that while book-sellers etc can pay to have their entries at the top of search engine lists, Wikipedia entries for books will always languish a few places down the list. Hope that this makes sense. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Velella. I do understand the reasoning and we'll have to do what we can with Google. Best wishes, Michael Yudkin (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

BAITSSS Model Declined

Thank you for providing the feedback. Regarding the analyses the benefits of the model in a reliable and independent way, most of these models are site specific, copyrighted etc., so that it is difficult to get larger attention like people. The purpose is to develop encyclopedia of this model. Regarding the benefit of the model, someone who is in the field clearly understand what is the model about and why is it different than other and what is advantage it. I have come across the numerous Wikipedia models and software portion, which discuss couple lines of the model without even reliable citations and sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hydrology_models The question is if it's worth to put time and effort to make go through the Wikipedia for this specific model. I would appreciate your comments on this.

Regarding the figure, the figure was from author’s manuscript based on 2016 and it is also on the author's website. I am not sure how it violates the copyright.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhun9265 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that it probably is worth pursing. It would be useful to have something outside of academia discussing the model. I am not familiar with US institutions but in the UK bodies such as the British Hydrological Society or the Environment Agency discussing it or even endorsing it would be good. It does concern me that there appears to be a good deal of conflict of interest here. I strongly suspect that you are an author of the model and of at least one of the references but I see no statement to that effect on your user page. As for the image, the source identified on the Commons clearly tracks back to a document marked copyright. You may need to investigate the procedures for donating copyright to Wikipedia to overcome this hurdle. Hope that this helps  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   02:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement. In the USA, unless you got some special prize about the model, there is nothing like that, someone endorses the model, but probably venues like NASA may time to time documents these kinds of models if they use in some respects. The only way to know if they are useful if they are widely cited by the community and used. Probably you know very well, it is not like people’s fame, it's a model to help to manage water which is vital for the society. These people spend life to develop these models. If I feel this effort doesn’t worth, I will delete the draft. Regarding the copyright of the figure, I can ensure that these figures are provided by the author, and there will not be a claim of copyright. Please let me know the official procedure. I have spent a considerable time to make it professional. I myself have reviewed hundreds of article in various venues. Thank you again and looking for your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhun9265 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pure, White and Deadly

Hello! Your submission of Pure, White and Deadly at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Yoninah (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

About "Best Worst Method" revision

Hi Velella, I just wanted to write you an answer to explain the changes made in the topic "Best Worst Method". In fact, what we did was just to report the current changes. You said that "Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy", but be sure that in our revision there is no advertising or promotional purpose. If mentioning "software" is perceived as advertising, actually we don't have to mention it. (it is not for profit, but for academic purposes). Sharing only updates to the "Best worst method" will keep Wikipedia up to date. Thanks in advance for your support.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulinoztas (talk • contribs) 08:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC) 

Please Stop Deleting Content

There is no reason to vandalize pages as you are doing and delete needed info. I know what I am talking about and I am not sure why you feel the need to attempt to delete new pages. This might be funny to you but it isn't to people who actually want to contribute to Wikipedia. Please don't ruin this wonderful website with multitudes of information because you want to have a little fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmbuff1994 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

check and comment

pls check and comment just dont warn me.Paavada (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I have not deleted any content

use ur brain and dont comment during edit conflict, show some patience, dont warn me ever again,Paavada (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

So this edit which removed over 1700 bytes was not removal of content? You are being disingenuous and your edit history doesn't reflect much credit on you.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   02:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

now check and comment. you dont give time for other editor's internet connection ? Paavada (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Persisting in editing in the confrontational way that you have adopted is most unhelpful and may result in your editing privileges being blocked. Wikipedia is about cooperative working, assuming good faith and working towards a consensus. Repeatedly warning other editors to "do not message me" and similar phrases, is inconsistent with the way Wikipedia works. You appear to have a particular agenda you wish to pursue. To make progress you need to persuade others that this is the appropriate agenda. I, for one, am not convinced.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   03:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy ANI notification

Hi, you may like to comment/explain at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Paavada. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Odd Twinkle message

That was an interesting Twinklespasm. Out of curiosity (I'm not in any way annoyed, just intrigued) was that just you adding a Twinkle CSD tag at the same time as I deleted the page? Yunshui ^雲_水 09:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, no, I see now. It was the talkpage, not the userpage I had deleted. No worries. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

(another edit conflict!)

My guess that it was exactly that. An edit conflict where Twinkle saw your edit on the talk page and assigned you as the author, after the article had gone. A message almost lost in space! Apologies - I cleaned up as fast as I could. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - no harm done! I was just concerned that Twinkle had done something weird, but it was actually working exactly as intended, notifying the person who create the page (me). Thanks for clearing up so fast. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

UAA socks

Do you know who the master is for them? I saw TempleofPoom21 but didn't know if there were others involved. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't regrettably, but I would share your strong suspicion. I guess only an SPI would settle it, but hardly worth the effort for what appear to be juvenile chancers.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   07:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. Yea, not worth the effort. One of the (now deleted) talk page edits reminded me of a sock that I saw recently ... just can't remember where. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Article nominated for AFD six minutes after it was created?

You have been around, you know that's not cool. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

No. That was 14 minutes. I had watched draft articles being created and was doing my searches only to find them booted straight from Draft to Mainspace - a common indicator of paid editing. My searches at that stage had shown nothing of notability. The due process would have been to submit the Drafts for review.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Private India Page Deletion

The Page for Private India was posted for deletion stating conflict of interest. I am not affiliated to any of the organizations or websites mentioned there. I read the book, I found as much details I can and created the page. In case you think some content is missing or needs editing please either update it or mention it on my talk page. I found the book interesting that is simply the reason to put up a page for that. In case I am missing some detail please tell me on my talk page. Thank you...:) TheReader1998 (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)TheReader1998

Reference to Lists of Recognized Specialties in Singapore

You removed a reference I made on the Hand Surgery page to a webpage listing the list of recognized specialties in Singapore. I am new to editing in Wikipedia, and had thought that reference was appropriate and similar to other references on the page. My reading of the referencing for beginners page did not seem to indicate the reference was out of line.

I would appreciate it if you could let me know what was wrong with that edit, and how I could better help to improve the page with additional citations.

Alfchong (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Alfchong - many apologies, you were right in adding the ref and I was wrong to delete it. It looked like so many references that we encounter promoting a surgeon or a doctor etc. and I didn't spend long enough reading it. Sorry also if this has in any way jaundiced your welcome into Wikipedia. I hope that you will stay and I will try not to delete your valid edits in future!  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   05:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Velella - I appreciate your explanation and the apology. Thank you. Alfchong (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Copy violation???

On what grounds do you suggest that this is a copyright violation? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Because it is sourced to a NWR page here which is clearly marked Copyright 2019. I note that it also appears on YouTube and I am trying to see whether it is possible to confirm the identity of whoever posted it there and whether it is indeed NWR, who, by posting it there, would preumable be relinquishing their copyright in favour of CC BY_SA Licence. Clearly the original owner is NRW and the licence conditions require "Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)". I am also unclear whether the attribution required by the licence is satisfied if the video on Commons is marked accordingly, or whether the attribution is required when the video is used in an article as here. Maybe @Diannaa: might be able to advice

The lack of attribution and the source given as YouTube gave me considerable cause for concern. However, you will also note that I have restored the video while I investigate the status of these videos.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Clicking on the video at https://naturalresources.wales/about-us/our-projects/reservoir-safety-projects/llyn-tegid-gwynedd/?lang=en takes us to YouTube, where the video is marked as being released under a Creative Commons license, with Natural Resources Wales / Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru as the uploader. The video is compatibly licensed and is okay to keep. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Whistle register

What is an acceptable reference (if not youtube, where you can hear it for yourself)? I don't want to waste anyone's time in some sort of trial and error limbo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isobellah (talk • contribs) 00:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:SELFPUBLISH for appropriate advice on this issue.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused, but mostly so because one of the other singers listed has youtube as the reference.Isobellah (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Plas Newydd

Dear Velella,

I was notified that you removed my comments about my family's home at Plas Newydd. Everything I wrote was factual and accurate.

We am currently living here in the family's apartment and we have been without heating nor hot water for 5 years as a result of the failed system.

Unfortunately this now means the collection we loan to the National Trust is at risk.

If you are local please do feel free to pop along and I can explain more about the situation.

Ben, Lord Uxbridge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.22.134 (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Emerald Insight

Hello,

Do you have access to Emerald Insight?

I noticed that you are listed as having access to Emerald Group Publishing.

If so, perhaps you would be able to help me.

I seek this source, to improve the Svedka article.

https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/case.darden.2016.000009

I've emailed the authors and posted to the Resources Exchange board multiple times to no avail.

Thanks,

Benjamin (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Benjaminikuta Apologies, but my access was withdrawn some time ago because of lack of use. I will remove the userbox.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   07:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Bummer. Thanks for the reply, anyway. You wouldn't happen to know anyone else who might have access, would you? Benjamin (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Benjaminikuta Sorry. I am only here very infrequently at present and I would not know how to go about searching. Sorry  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Velella/Archives,

News

• The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

• Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
• {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
• A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
• There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

• NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

• Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
• copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
• The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ɱ (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Cluttons

Hi, I do have another username but that is my personal one and this is for work...I have taken away the "promotional" content in the copy like asked by another user - the majority of the content on the Cluttons wiki page is INCORRECT. Can you please stop changing it?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melrosecluttons (talk • contribs) 14:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Melrosecluttons So this alternative account is not used for work at all ? This is most confusing since the only edits that that account made were to Cluttons before the account was blocked due to vandalism. We try to assume good faith , but when good faith flys in the face of verifiable evidence, that tends to be more difficult. You have a self declared conflict of interest. You must not edit the Cluttons page. Please make suggestions on the article talk page and let other editors decide whether to include them or not. Thank you .  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Apologies but I did not realise my other account was blocked and did not recall using it to make the last round of changes on the Cluttons page. This has all been very innocent. I work for Cluttons and have been provided the copy to update our Wiki page as the majority of the content on there is now incorrect. You don't have to be so rude. How am I supposed to update the page?

Please first make a declaration on your user page about your conflict of interest. (see WP:COI for guidance in this). The put your request for changes on the talk page of the article, together with sources that support those changes. If you believe that sourced text in the article is inappropriate, please give your reasons for believing this and, if relevant, suggest alternatives. Your company has no ownership of the article and employees and agents of the company are specifically proscribed from contributing to the article or making changes unless theses requirements are met. I hope that this is helpful. I apologise if my earlier comments sounded rude, they were meant to sound facetious, but humour rarely works in these circumstances  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit Warning

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Lynne DiSanto. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.  Ryno35  ^{Ryno35 Talk}   19:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I've started a discussion but all you do is revert.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

This really isn't helpful. How about don't template the regulars? How about Bold. Revert, Discuss - not sure where the discussion was ? Protecting the reputation of a favoured politician is probably OK outside of Wikipedia, but it doesn't cut the mustard here. There may be arguments for removing some content if the article is unbalanced, but it is up to you to make that case in a logical and justified way. Simply repeatedly removing content and then coming here like a bull in a china shop isn't, actually, going to fix anything.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

"not sure where the discussion was" how about on the "talk" page. Great to see you got your friends to continue to bring down the quality and integrity of wikipedia.Ryno35 (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

No. On the talk page you have expressed your opinion. What is needed is rational argument based on reliable sources to demonstrate that the content is either wrong, or is a misunderstanding or is seriously unbalanced or whatever, together with reasons. However when a politician posts material herself that appears to show support for white supremacist views, then that is something very significant.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

That's your opinion and it's wrong. Nothing about that social media post shows "support for white supremacist views". You are hurting the integrity of Wikipedia by bringing your political bias to the content.Ryno35 (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

You should go to Talk:Lynne DiSanto and discuss why the changes that were made should not stand. ~ GB fan 10:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I have been off-line. I only edit here for short periods. I have responded with a reasoned comment at the article talk page.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Masaru Emoto

Hi colleague, how are you?

I know you have your own mindset, already formed, but what about let the readers have access to all information available? To name yourself as the only owner of truth and censor the other side of the moon point of view is not at all very wise, or 'scientific' ;)

Best of luck! Cmcordova (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Your user page asserts that you are a scientist, presumably trained in the scientific method and yet you make this suggestion ?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of articles

Hello, can you please elaborate on why the following articles were deleted?

• United Kingdom Practical Shooting Association
• Northern Ireland Practical Shooting Confederation

Sauer202 (talk) 05:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't delete them, I only nominated them for deletion because there was neither evidence of notability nor of significance.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   18:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Precocious puberty

Hello, my name is Teresa and I am editing this page. I am trying to add more stuff in the page and I see that my work has been taken down. Can you please tell me the reason why and what can I do to make it better? Thank you. (Teresating (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC))

The entries included a sandbox wikipedia link and your user name. I thought that you had unintentionally added text to the article rather than your sandbox Because of that I restored the last good version prior to your addions. Apologies if I misread your intentions. Contributions to articles should never include your username or origins, that is reserved for talk pages. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Questions about your addition

Hello

For this wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control

There is a sentence: "In China flood diversion areas are rural areas that are deliberately flooded in emergencies in order to protect cities."

Originally it was written as: "In India, Bangladesh and China, flood diversion areas are rural areas that are deliberately flooded in emergencies in order to protect cities."

I read the source link and it didn't mention anything at all about india or bangladesh, so I removed those 2 countries from the sentence.

Then I did some digging and found out that the original sentence WAS "In China flood diversion areas are rural areas that are deliberately flooded in emergencies in order to protect cities." and it was YOU that added the india and bangladesh sentence when it had nothing at all to do with those 2 countries, the date was jan 21 2013:

curprev 23:26, 21 January 2013‎ Velella talk contribs‎ 20,443 bytes +1,024‎ →‎Asia: add country text removed from Flood undothank

You added: In India, Bangladesh and China, flood diversion areas are rural areas that are deliberately flooded in emergencies in order to protect cities. I was just wondering why did you add india and bangladesh when it had nothing at all to do with those countries? I removed those 2 countries, but I do notice that indians are doing such garbage edits such as randomly adding their country name to things in wikipedia pages that have nothing to do with the damn country and it does seem strange. Is it trolling? I do look out for this stuff and edit it back, but south asian people shouldn't be trying to inflate their own entries on wikipedia by doing such BS such as adding their country names to wikipedia pages that are not supported by external links.

Sorry, but that is way beyond my recall - that was 6 years ago. From my professional knowledge I am still aware that both India and Bangladesh have used a policy of deliberately controlled flooding to minimise catastrophic flooding but beyond that I cannot recall. Rather than deleting text, it is always more productive to search out sources first to support the text rather than assume it is an error. I also think that it is always most unconstructive and unhelpful to label any group of people, whether by nationality, ethnicity, religious affiliation or any other commonality, with any particular traits or behaviour. I personally would consider your comments above to be overtly racist.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing United We Fall (TV series), Velella.

Wgolf has gone over this page again and marked it as unpatrolled. Their note is:

Might not be notable, unreferneced, wait till issues are resolved before marking it patrolled.

Please contact Wgolf for any further query. Thanks.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Wgolf (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Wgolf - the very act of tagging it as unreferenced, lacking sources and uncategorised automatically marks it as reviewed. I don't belief it is notable, but tagging it for speedy deletion only minutes after its creation is a little heavy handed. I still believe that it could be speedily deleted.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   07:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Velella/Archives,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

• Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
• Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News

• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Discussions of interest

• A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
• There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
• What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are most welcome sir. That editor was banned for COI once.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!. .... and he should probably be banned again ! Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome.. Thanks again for your edits. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Yap Ah Loy

Please reinstate the factual line below. Yap Ah Loy is my ancestor, my great great grandpa. It would be best to give due leeway for such family info. Thank you.

Descendants: Through his grandson George Yap Swee Fatt, some of the Indot family are thus descendants of Yap Ah Loy. GGG Yap Ah Loy (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

That is not the role of Wikipedia. Sorry.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

That line was previously there, for many months, maybe a year or two.

The descendants column wasnt put there by me.

Then at least reinstate the Descendants item/heading (i will furnish it with truthful facts later). GGG Yap Ah Loy (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Yap Ah Loy info

Pls reinsert the last line, at the bottom.

Over at my side in Malaysia, it has been my family's angst to see twisted info about our Yap Ah Loy.  With some curiousity, determination & trial+error, i managed to update some pertinent info into Wikipedia.  Updating Wikipedia is a mystery to many many people incldng me, until just ago.

For our family sake, pls reinstate the line below. You may discard the gathering & email part. Your revert is appreciated. (May30 6:50am; Petaling Jaya, Malaysia)

> Through his grandson George Yap Swee Fatt, some of the Indot family are thus descendants of Yap Ah Loy. GGG Yap Ah Loy (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia. Comments related to personal matters are wholly inappropriate here.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Sherdil

Respected Velella,

Regards from the NK Pictures.

It is to inform that we being the producer of the movie understand and knows every detail more then anybody. We are amazed that our changes were reverted back. Could you kindly look into the reason of reversion because we have provided the factual report. Moreover, if you could kindly read there are many grammatical and spelling mistakes in the present write up(Sherdil) which we had corrected. Ultimately it is something which is related to the name of Sherdil. If you require any authenticity we can always provide. NOMAAN KHAN 2K3 (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

NOMAAN KHAN 2K3 Please re-read your talk page. I have twice posted links to the conflict of interest policy and procedures. If you followed those links you will have seen that you are explicitly forbidden to contribute to articles where you have a direct conflict of interest. Assuming that you have read the guidance, please can you explain what you are requesting here?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   18:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Respected Velella,

Regards from the NK Pictures.

Thankyou for drawing our attention for the purpose of highlighting the “conflict of interest”(sherdil). We have made sure that we should not put any links of the YouTube and the instagram and if there were any, we had taken them off. Note the figures which have been shown are incorrect and there are several grammatical mistakes in the present draft. Moreover, the reports written are not completely factual. Lastly the complete story has been revealed in an incorrect manner which in not standard Wikipedia policy. Please allow us to send you the draft for plot & figures. sherdil --NOMAAN KHAN 2K3 (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Pleas, please read WP:COI. This has nothing to do with YouTube or instagram. This has to do with you and your relationship to the film. Anything that you add to the article may be deleted because of your conflict of interest. Please do try and understand the issue.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Ashlee Nyathi page

Hi Velella. Thank you for alerting me to make changes on Ashlee Nyathi's profile. I have made the changes and I am convinced that the material in the profile is a true reflection of the information in articles shown in the references below the profile. I have also uploaded a new image that I personally took for consideration.

Regards Godwin Muzari — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godwin Muzari (talk • contribs) 15:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced. There is no evidence of any notability  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok

Ok. Sorry. It was mistake. Zarcika info box. Sorry. P Springer999 (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

EDIT PAGE THAMRIN NINE

Dear velella,

im etrie from thamrin nine, i want to edit thamrin nine's wikipedia. im marketing at thamrin nine, my wikipedia edit by people we dont know, so i want edit this page.

I have changed a number of times, but always return to the original page. How do I edit what I can succeed. please ask for permission and can be given permission to edit. for more information about me, you can contact me at [email protected]

thank you

Etrie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etriehandayani (talk • contribs) 10:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Please read the advice and warnings already given on your Talk page. Reading some other Wikipedia articles about buildings might also help.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   10:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Can your check my article again hopefully it's good enough now :)

Can your check my article again hopefully it's good enough now :)

Beat Hazard 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikieboy1 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems to have gone........  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   18:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your revert of the last edit by me on pollution

You have recently reverted my edit on the article Pollution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution I tried to simplify them as basically only four types of pollution are there and there so many were mentioned. I am again going to bring back those edit with some consideration over your complaint that I copied. After seeing this discussion if again you have any problem then please first leave your message on my talk page before re editing. I will definitely pay attention towards your doubt or complaint.

By: Bugatti Enthusiast Aishwary Raj Bugatti Enthusiast Aishwary Raj (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Pleased this first. This makes it clear that, having been reverted, it is up to you to provide justification on the talk page first and seek agreement from other editors. Not the other way round.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Hi Velella,

Thanks for the welcome, the information on adding citations, and the patience with me. As you see, I am new, and I was not aware of Wikipedia editing etiquette (and I am still learning). I now realize that I went quite a bit overboard with the citations, but now understand and will follow etiquette regarding this. I appreciate your vigilance and work making sure Wikipedia is a useful resource.

Out of curiosity, do you have a particular interest in the science of filtration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hriktos (talk • contribs) 00:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hriktos My user page probably will offer some clues, but I have had a very long career involved in fluid dynamics and their biotic interactions which very much includes filtration. See, for instance, Schmutzdecke which I created back in 2004.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Respected Velella,

Regards from the NK Pictures.

Thankyou for drawing our attention for the purpose of highlighting the “conflict of interest”(sherdil). We have made sure that we should not put any links of the YouTube and the instagram and if there were any, we had taken them off. Note the figures which have been shown are incorrect and there are several grammatical mistakes in the present draft. Moreover, the reports written are not completely factual. Lastly the complete story has been revealed in an incorrect manner which in not standard Wikipedia policy. Please allow us to send you the draft for plot & figures. sherdil

--NOMAAN KHAN 2K3 (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI again. The guidance there is clear. Please raise your concerns on the article talk page where you can also suggest improvements and corrections which should all be supported by reliable sources. Anything that you post directly to the article is likely to be reverted because of COI. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

My Contributions Are Not Appearing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expense_management

Hi Velella,

Please tell me whether the below content will be approved or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tina Finly (talk • contribs) 13:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Choosing an Expense Management Solution Digital Receipts - Smart OCR technology is capable of identifying the information on the receipt like expense date, amount, merchant name and category so that your employees don’t have to enter anything manually. It also saves the email and receipt attachments and you don’t even have to download and upload files.

Spend Analytics - With business expense happening everywhere, one should keep in mind that data-driven decisions play a major role in the company’s financial management. With expense data analytics, you can analyze the amount of spending the company is incurring, where exactly the spends are happening and how often it is getting repeated. You have a chance to analyze your own financial data and then minimize by cutting the unnecessary expenses.

What part of this is commercial?

References

Hi @Tina Finly: I've detailed the reasons for denying this edit request in the copyvio/original research/self-citing notice on your talk page. Orville1974^talk 16:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Orville1974 . I would also have added that even without the copyvio, there was also a major conflict of interest and blatant promotion of a blog. My guess is that you are Tina Aurora who wrote the January 21 article on a blog called Finly - which itself promotes solutions for expense reporting. How many more trip wires would you like to fall over? This is very close to blocking sanctions being applied  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Velella/Archives,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Help Required

Hello Velella, I'm quite new to Wikipedia and would love to share and contribute my knowledge to the community. If I have to contribute to Expense Management page, how would I do that? By the way, this would not be a sponsored content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tina Finly (talk • contribs) 07:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Tina Finly I am slightly mystified by your request since your own talk page is liberally sprinkled with appropriate advice. This advice includes avoiding copyright violations, not citing your own work and , in more detail, how to manage a conflict of interest. As a starter please re-read WP:COI and follow the advice given there. Included in that guidance is the need to declare your conflict of interest on your user page (you do have a conflict of interest so that should be the first action) and not contributing to articles where you have a conflict of interest (so that rules out contributing directly to Expense management). If you still have queries after reading the guidance and modifying your user page, please feel free to come back and ask some more.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

VERY SORRY VELELLA

I shall punish myself don't you worry. I'm new to wikileaks and i haven't quite got the hang of it yet, I'm getting there. my lack of experience is why i am as u said, "Vandalising", talk soon Xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barryphillipsandermore (talk • contribs) 13:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

This isn't wikileaks, and one more strike and you're out.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Bhumika Gurung

Hi, this is regarding the creation of the page bhumika gurung, i have given warning of disruptive editing and being asked to talk to you. Could you please elaborate the problems which you have mentioned "lack of substance" and "notability" because i had followed every guideline of wikipedia and also refered to as many different articles mentioning the crdibility of this actress and also i referred to many notable tv actors wikipage created by others before creating this page.

Lisamol (talk) 09:54, 3 July 2019

Other editors have already replied to identical questions posed on their talk pages. I can only endorse the advice that you have already been given.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Reversion Revision

Hi Velella, thanks for reviewing the Measurement Incorporated page, I didn’t undo your reversion, however I did make some changes to it. I changed the format, re-added the inforbox, wrote about the historical preservation, included a few awards, fixed grammar, and added 3 more categories. I am new to Wikipedia and still figuring things out, so if something on the page can be done better, please let me know! Thanks, Mlyoungmc (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

AFD Rebecca Rusch page, from a contributor

velella hello! I'm brand-new to contributing/editing on wiki. I was asked to make updates to a page that has been around for a long time. I'm doing my best to understand guidelines regarding primary, secondary, tertiary sources and terms such as "notability." I have read the WP GNG. I was surprised to find my edits generated a proposal for deletion of the page. In reading the two comments visible to me, I'd like to offer the following in defense of the article remaining intact. First, there's nothing to be gained by deleting an article when it can be "improved" according to wiki guidelines. GNG states "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article." The subject, Rebecca Rusch, has been covered in the media over a span of decades (2+)...Outside magazine, Men's Journal, National Geographic, ESPN and PBS/NPR stations to name a few. Further, "notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." I freely admit as a new contributor I'm not in command of all the nuances of sources, citations, etc. but I am making an effort to learn and edit accordingly. I note on your talk page a quote from you: "I believe that even a poor article about a notable individual is much to be preferred than a good article about a non-entity." I agree completely! I do not think this is a poorly written article as it stands, but I do appreciate that it can be better sourced and I'm happy to do that homework. I do in fact have a message into the helpdesk of one of the webpages cited (active.com), which was put there by a previous contributor, not myself, but because I could not locate the page, I sent an inquiry to find out if they could help me confirm the claim that the other contributor made about the subject having been called out as being in the "top 50", "top 100" etc. athletes on their own website. I totally can appreciate the need for neutrality, avoiding the appearance of promotion, and protecting the legitimacy of wiki as a reliable source. I do not feel the content of the page as it currently stands violates any of those standards. While they may or may not be cited properly, I believe there is a combination of primary and secondary source material, and I cannot imagine the notability of the subject to be in question. One other user weighed in, in favor of deletion, by saying that the subject played a role in a movie, which is inaccurate. She was the primary subject of an award-winning documentary, not the same thing. Lastly, your comments asserted "relentless COI editing," but may I ask what evidence exists of a conflict of interest? Anyway, thank you very much for your time. Teresa.Huk (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Teresa.Huk it is likely to be much more effective arguing the case at the deletion discussion. I do not nominate article for deletion lightly and I see no good reason based on policy and guidelines to change my view in this case.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   05:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Art Thinking Article

Hello,

I totally agree with your comment. But I really don't know how to do it. Could you give me some tips !

Thank you so much for your help,

Regards,

Anna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annalog95 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)