User talk:Velella

This talk page was archived prior to my recent break from editing. Please feel free to start new discussions below.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy declined

Hi, I declined your speedy deletion request of MusiqInTheMagiq for two reasons: a) albums are not eligible for deletion under criterion A7, and b) as an album of a notable musician, there is definitely a claim of importance in the article. Feel free to PROD the article or submit it to AFD. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

On the images

All I did was add images to pages. I always looked if the images were relevant to the page and if they were, I added them. I did all these edits in good faith, hoping to improve said pages by illustrating them (further). It was never my intention to cause any harm. What is wrong with including a picture of a man smoking a cigarette to a page on smoking, or an image of an engaged couple to a page on engagement? Batavier2.0 (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It may be better to ask the question "Does this image significantly improve this article?" rather than rely on a tenuous connection. In my personal view, few if any, of your added images have added any value to the articles to which they have been added.

You ask "What is wrong with including a picture of a man smoking a cigarette to a page on smoking" , the answer is that, by analogy, if all editors who drive a car added their own image of their own car the article Car would be inundated with hundreds of thousands of images of cars. That would hardly be helpful or encylopaedic  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are coming from. I still believe, however, that no real harm has been done. For example: in the page: pencil moustache I added a perfect example of such a moustache. Still, it was reverted. The user Denniss simply reverted ALL my edits and those of others and removed my images from ALL pages, even from those in which I did not include them (others used the files aswell). That was my main issue here. I hope we can find a pleasant solution for all parties involved. And that not ALL IMAGES need be removed. Batavier2.0 (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Mohammad Soleimani

Dear Velella,

There seems to have been a mix up while we were both editing the Mohammad Soleimani article. In fact, I think I clicked to revert an edit just right after you have reverted it. Hence, I ended up reverting your (good faith) reverting. I'm really sorry about that. Of course, I have removed this vandalism template as there was no vandalism at all.

Thank you for pointing this out to me!

Xionbox^₪ 12:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

De rien. I thought I had made a serious mistake. Merci.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Raines HS

Watch those reverts -- you're restoring completely unreferenced promotional sections. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

When an IP is blanking out large chunks of a page, it is difficult if not impossible to verify that all the content lost is as good as it could be. I will always restore major deletions which have no edit summaries rather than do a fine edit; it at least restores status quo and leaves open the opportunity to improve and more surgically excise later.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Water Management

Dear Velella:

First of all I am not "Monsoon Waves", haven't edited this article before and my intention is not to defend my own contribution. I am even not a persistent contributor. So, no need to make a bogeyman. As I understood from the former version of this paragraph, the author argues that:

- water management is closely related to water economy and therefore sustainability needs to be achieved through profitability - the major cost faktor in water management is the infrastructure management (pipes, dams, treatment plants, etc.) - the infrastructure costs (construction, maintenance, etc.) are nearly invariant from the water volumes

Considering that water losses during transportation frequently amount to more than 40 percent even in industrialized countries, water management is much more complex than closing your tap and reusing waste water on a small scale.

If you think this paragraph should be improved, I am with you. I simply felt that you had replaced a meaningful text, which is obviously in line with the latest statements from scientists and international organisations, by some platitudes.

Best regards84.189.78.78 (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Water Management

Dear Velella:

Thank you for ingnoring my explanations (see above) without any feed back.

Juruena (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. I have read your comments and have taken the trouble to post the whole exchange on the article discussion page so that all editors may participate in the debate. However in the absence of any response to my specific questions, I reverted the article to what I believe is a more accurate statement. As far as I am able to tell, the paragraph that you reverted relates solely to water supply and sanitation which is only a small part of water management. I would much prefer to reach a consensus view on this but that does require that all editors share the same basic understanding of the meaning of water management.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Velella,

The more you edit this article, the less I understand your intentions. May be you can explain your overall concept. In any case I would ask you to get down off the highchair and abstain from expressions like "unsatisfactory answers" and of course from any suspicions.

Alright, finally back to the content:

1st paragraph (Definition)

Is it your opinon that water management requires the optimum use of water resources? Optimal in regard to which objective function? And if the planning, developing, distributing and managing is not optimal, doesn't it fulfil the definition? You also refer to an ideal world and that water management planning (?) is rarely possible in practice. In fact I cannot understand why water management by definition should be different to the management of any other resource or system.

Water resources

The 1st paragraph about water as a rare resource sounds to me a little bit superficial. Politicians use to open their speeches in that way on each and every conference. As we are talking about a hydrologic cycle the terminus "re-use" is somehow unclear. Do you mean a strategy to reduce the water bill or the efforts to mitigate harmful effects caused by the large scale anthropic deviations of water? What do you mean by "minimising the environmental impact on the natural environment"? Under which conditions is water management "successful" in your opinion? "to translate policy decisions into actions on the ground" Am I right that water management is mainly a matter of governability and arbitration in your opinion? I cannot agree with you that water is very different from other resources, evades conventional terms and that "assigning a financial value" is more difficult than in other cases. Those statements are sometimes made by politicians and funtonaries but mostly to justify their lag of expertise and practical action. Also those "short-term-profit deals" in the water sector invented by some french lobbyist holdings have created confusion about the relation of water and economy. If you are interested in water management and economy I can suggest the papers of the Copenhagen Consensus und the WAS approach developed at the MIT. There are also some very promising projects running in this field in Germany and Central America, however most of the publications aren't available in english so far.

Alright, I am expressing my interest in doing some good work together on this article. Please give me an idea of your general concept.

Kind regardsJuruena (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A joke? - Username?

Hi there, I just recieved a message from you on my talk page, and Im confussed as to whether it is a joke or not? My username does not reflect the articles I edit. Yes I participate in the Waterloo Road articles, however I also edit others. The reason for the time I spend on the Waterloo Road articles is because of the high amounts of vandalism they have on a regular basis, I end up clearing a lot up. Whats really confussing me, is how my username has never been made an issue of until now. I apologise if this comes across a little naieve, but i am confussed by the situation Waterloo Road ED (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The New

Dear Velella- why have you tagged my article for speedy deletion? The band is notable and has articles in news papers and magazines to back it up... Please re-consider or at least tell me what needs to be added to keep the article from being deleted. Whyisyouhollerin (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

replied on talk page of The New.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Velella, who are you to edit anything? There is NO "source" to Monica Horan being a horrible actress other than anyone watching her on Everybody Loves Raymond can see this for themselves. Kindly replace the post I posted earlier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.252.72 (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Simple. No source - no edit.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   18:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You say that I am disrupting the article on the 2010 UK General Election by removing information that has already been stated in the chart, yet its a bit daft having two sets of identical information and the part that I am deleting is not necassary and is taking up room whilst the chart is compresed and is alot easier to understand. Also you have just reverted my edits saying that there is an unexplained removal of content but if you look at the article it is clearly all still there but in a table!!

80.6.193.71 (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. The answer is to provide edit summaries.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This is xkimberley9 You messaged me and said I was 'advertising' in what I added to the Solihull page but I don't understand how I was? All I put was that there is a girl group from Solihull, I didn't even put any links to any of their music or sites?

Your edit appeared to be promoting a group without notability. There is no article for the group and they appear to have little notability from a Goggle search. My judgement was that someone including a (presumably) new group in an article about a town was trying to promote that group. Hence my comment. Wherever I find non-notable additions to article such as Solihull, I delete them as per Wikipedia policies. I also try to advice the editor where possible so that they can be aware of the change, as in this case  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Stephane Hamelin

I've declined your speedy because the article doesn't exist on the French Wikipedia. Not any more - it was probably up when you found it. It's a repeated creation and seems to be admin-only protected now. I've retagged it db-bio. Peridon (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No citation for "Ring Around the Rosy"

I cannot cite a printed article; however, as a long-time college professor of public health, I have been told this a number and times and even have included it in my lectures over a period of 30 years. I didn't just make this up. Sometimes, there are facts known but no written documentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.59.12.226 (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is sometimes difficult to find sources for issues such as this. However, in this case, I can see no good etymological link between Lou and loo particularly since the latter word only attained its common use much later than the supposed date of the song lyrics (Loo was first recorded in print in 1922). I too have worked for more then 40 years in the public health/environmental quality fields and have never encountered this linkage . I think this does need a robust reference to be reinstated.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   06:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It was commonly taught in the School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill (I received one of my Ph.D. degrees from UNC years ago); at least two professors used it in their lectures, as did I in some of my classes. It might be wrong, but it was used as a teaching aid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.59.12.226 (talk) 06:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that it might therefore continue to be used in lectures as an excellent example of how myths and "facts" that cannot be confirmed by the scientific method still manage to creep into science despite all our best endeavours. It might be an interesting challenge to set a group of students to establish or prove false the hypotheses that the "Lou" in "skip to my lou" is derived from a reference to the toilet/ lavatory .  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

dePRODding is allowed

Hi. This warning was wrong - anyone is permitted to remove a PROD, for any reason or none, see WP:DEPROD. The idea of PROD is to save work at AfD where a deletion is uncontroversial, but as soon as anyone objects it is no longer uncontroversial, so once removed a PROD cannot be replaced, and AfD is the only way to go. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, an oversight on my part - I had misidentified it in Huggle as an AFD not a PROD. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Water pollution NPOV

Hello. I see that you've had no reply to your query about the NPOV tag at Water pollution, so I reverted the tag. It's been almost a week since that tag was posted--certainly more than enough time. Moreau1 (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - it is useful to have others fill in in for my failing memory some times!. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Nikki Haley

I rolled back what I believe to be a bad edit, the sources were there in the original edit no idea what they are now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.233.108 (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No. You reverted a good edit that had eliminated a verbatim copy of some text that may also have been a copyright violation. The numbers in brackets are a big give-away. You were incorrect in re-instating it without checking to see whether there were actually any references to support it - there weren't.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Sustainable energy

Hi Velella, I seem to have got into an edit war with a user on the sustainable energy template. He seems to think that biogas, landfill gas and wood gas derived from biomass are not sources of renewable energy. I would appreciate your assistance on the talk page.

Thanks--Alex Marshall (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I have read the discussion which seems to have settled since your last edit this morning. I am taking a short wiki-break now but if if the discussion is still running when I get back I will certainly add my twopennyworth . Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi Velella, I was starting on the backlog at Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections and the first "copyvio" I came across was actually this tagging of a talk page. I don't see any need for the talk page to be thus tagged and would happily remove it. However, considering the action that's been going on at that article, I thought I'd check with you first. Is there still any need for the tag? LordVetinari (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Also Talk:Balaji Sakthivel, apparently. LordVetinari (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the tag on M._K._Rajakumar can go - I have fixed it myself. The article is still a hopeless mess but the questionable stuff has gone. Balaji Sakthivel is different and still appear to be a direct and paste job and, without some good independent sources, I might be tempted to PROD it.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Was puzzled more than anything. I wasn't sure whether you may have had some reason for putting the tags on the talk pages, hence checking with you first. I haven't done much copyvio checking/fixing yet so I'm still learning. Anyway, thanks for your help. LordVetinari (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Buddhism and sexuality

Thanks for your message. The sentences i removed were these: "Asian societies shaped by Buddhist traditions take a strong ethical stand in human affairs and sexual behaviour in particular. However, unlike most other world religions, most variations of Buddhism do not go into details as to what is right and what is wrong in what it regards as mundane activities of life."

As a scholar of Buddhism whose work is respected I can affirm that the second sentence is false and unverifiable (which is why it is uncited). Secondly, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia and India have the worst incidence of child prostitution in the world according to reports published by the United Nations and other human rights groups. These reports show that approximately 40% of prostitutes in these countries are children. Therefore, I ask you, how can it be affirmed that 'Asian societies shaped by Buddhist traditions take a strong ethical stand..in sexual behaviour in particular.'? 81.107.150.246 (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that the article to which you refer is Religion and homosexuality. I have no religion affiliation of any sort and can neither affirm nor deny your assertions. All I ask, as an editor on Wikipedia, is that additions of text or their removal are supported by substantive references upon which I can rely. I would have thought that it should be easily possible to refute the claim that ".....most variations of Buddhism do not go into details as to what is right and what is wrong in what it regards as mundane activities of life." simply by quoting relevant passages from accepted Buddhist writings ? Is this not so ?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes but as an editor of Wikipedia you have a duty to apply the same standards consistently. The existing text which you have restored does not have any citations besides being as you point out easily refutable. So why not apply the same rigorous standards to the existing text as you do to my edits which did not need citations because I was removing unverified and unverifiable text? 81.107.150.246 (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If I was to trawl through every statement on Wikipedia using the absolute criteria of verifiability I would never have a life. I simply set myself the task of looking at changes to articles and determining whether the changes are supported by evidence. In your case they were not. If you can produce verification that statements are wrong, please change those statements or delete the text but please do also quote the reference. Getting a Wikipedia User-name would also help and please feel free to help in the bigger challenges of Wikpedia.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Mawrth Vallis

though your diligence is laudable, the article on Mawrth Vallis hardly qualifies as a wp:stub, and my edit was likewise hardly nonconstructive....thanks --68.124.133.144 (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that you have the wrong editor. This is not an article that I have ever edited.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on the nonsensical message on my talk page. That account and the other sockpuppet won't be bothering us any more. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries - that what my Huggle thumb is for !. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Bishop Tagle-

Hi I reduced the article about Bishop Tagle to a stub and added a citation. I agree with DGG Roman Catholic bishops are consider notable. I hope this is helpful. Thank you-RFD (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I reread the Wikipedia Guidelines concerning people. For any person who receives a well known significant award or honor that person would be notable. Being appointed a Roman Catholic bishop would be a honor. You can included Eastern Orthodox, Episcopalian bishops. Because he was appointed to a position of honor, Bishop Tagle would be notable. That includes Episcopalian, Eastern Orthodox bishops. Thank you-RFD (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Becoming a Bishop is certainly an honour if you are a Christian, but for a non-Christian it is simply an hierarchical position within a large organisation, no more, no less. In Britain it is an honour to receive a Knighthood, an OBE a MBE etc. but it would be ludicrous if everyone who has ever received an honour from the Queen merited a Wikipedia article. Looking to academia, the appointment to a Professorship in a British University is an undoubted honour and often confers much greater responsibility (at least for the living) than does the appointment as a Bishop, yet it remains only those professors who have achieved notability in addition to their honourable appointment who feature in Wikipedia. Is this view that becoming a Bishop is a sufficient honour to establish prima facie notability a personal interpretation of the guidelines or are you aware of the Wikipedia community reaching a consensus view on this particular point ?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hairy Frog

This article is riddled with stale vandalism (funny as it may be), mixing in tidbits on Wolverine into the article. You reverted my attempt at removing this poppycock -- it might be more productive to see if the article can be repaired. The Hairy Frog's scientific name is not "Sniktus Bubus", nor does it have retractable claws (sadly). 82.95.254.249 (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I stand corrected -- the frogs do have retractable claws. :-D Talk about life imitating art. Now I get the vandalism too... 82.95.254.249 (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ho hum, we both got something wrong - I hope it is now back to a more or less correct version !.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

That's probably going to be hard to tell... Wiki magic should take care of making it completely correct again, eventually. Just be careful reverting, not all anons making small edits are vandals. Take it from a former administrator. :-) 82.95.254.249 (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If I thought all IPs were vandals, my edit count would be in the 100,000s! Lots of IPs provide as much value as many well established Wikipedian names (more in some cases). I don't and won't judge an edit by its source, only on its quality. In the case of your edit, the mixing of a name change in a a biological article linked to a comic article, coupled with the Google search suggested a high probability of vandalism. But as in all probabilities, sometimes the it is the less probable outcome that is true.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Spoken like a true Wikipedian. No hard feelings, and keep up the good work. 82.95.254.249 (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Roman Catholic bishops

Hello, I saw your question about the notability of RC bishops. Disclosing my background and bias, I was raised Roman Catholic but left that church almost 45 years ago and have many deep and profound criticisms of that institution. That being said, I believe that RC bishops are, in almost all cases, notable. In my experience, they receive far more coverage in reliable sources than CEOs of mid-sized companies and are very notable in their diocese. You may well disagree, but perhaps we can agree that a speedy is not appropriate for Roman Catholic bishops, or for Anglican/Episcopalian bishops. Take them to a one week AfD, but don't speedy them. Morman bishops, though, are a dime a dozen. Speedy them if that's the only claim of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with Bishops, or anyone else for that matter, for whom notability can be demonstrated using reputable sources. My question started with a stub for a Bishop in the Philippines whose only notability seemed to be that he was a Bishop. If the article was about a teenage wannabe pop singer who had received the same extent of local press coverage as the Philippine Bishop, we would all speedy it without a second thought. I am unclear why we have one rule for middle-aged (generally) middle-class men and a different one for spotty teenagers?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the devandalization. Quinxorin (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure (what a wonderful thing Huggle is!).  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Undrinkable Water

Uh, Ok.

Eric567 (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Nelson Montana

Thanks for removing the advertisement link. The article's currently up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nelson_Montana. Please feel free to add your thoughts to the discussion. All the best. — Fly by Night (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Kahloon

Hello I note that you have sometimes been cleaning up the 'notable' list on Kahloon, it has been rvtd/added to again. I decided that you have the best idea of deleting all unsourced & non-notable people, so trimmed it back myself. rgds 78.105.48.31 (talk) 06:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, its a real problem - so many look reputable, but without links or other refs it's impossible to sort out the good from the bad.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Religion in Eritrea page

As an Eritrean I think it is best if you leave the facts to me. I plan to continue editing Religion in Eritrea. Write back.

As a Wikipedia editor of many years standing, I only edit to improve the quality and integrity of Wikipedia. I know nothing about Eritrea or its religion but I do need to see sound evidence to support any edit, preferably both in the edit itself in the form of accompanying robust reference and in the edit summary that gives a clear indication why the edit is being made.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

CSD G4 on Dimpy Sen

Hi, just dropping by to let you know I have challenged your WP:CSD G4 on Dimpy Sen. G4 is for pages that have been previously deleted after a deletion discussion. As far as I can tell, the past deletions of Dimpy Sen were not the product of a discussion. I have reverted the page to an earlier version that had a BLPPROD which had been improperly removed by an IP editor before you tagged the article for CSD. I have no objection if you want to pursue any other deletion processes on the article. Monty₈₄₅ 17:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right, but she's gone again with a speedy, so unless she re-appears for the fourth time, its all plain sailing.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Zoltek changes removed

I was trying to make this article more informative and balanced. Is there a reason you reverted it to the old version, which doesn't really say much about what the company is or what it is doing. I thought the added information would be useful to people, as it would be to me. I'm not sure where to leave this comment exactly, but when I make thoughtful changes to an article and have them promptly deleted without discussion, it sort of demotivates me from attempting to contribute to Wikipedia. I'm still learning the ropes, but I thought my contribution was useful and about as balanced as it can be. If someone wants to make some modifications, that's what Wikipedia is about. To delete all the additions though, the article is not going to go anywhere, as I see it. Right now it's little more than a stub with hardly any useful information. You have to start somewhere. I often see barebones articles like that, and I rarely add to them. This time I thought I would do my duty. But BLAM, the whole thing is gone in five seconds without a second thought. Jeez.

Your additions read like an extract from the company's annual report to stockholders not an encyclopaedic article. The only reference is from the company itself. Please check out other reputable company sites. You may note that the Zoltek article is already flagged up as being too much like and advertisement. Your additions regrettably only exacerbated the concern.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes to "vandalism"

Hi,

The changes I've made to the America's Got Talent (season 2) page were classed as "vandalism" and reverted. All I have done was fix the misspellings of a couple of the contestants' names and the description of one of the acts to what they really are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluewave103 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No that is neither true and nor were you editing under your current Username when you made the edit. I find it interesting that your first edit under your new name was to delete the reference to your IP being blocked for vandalism in January. This is probably not a good start for your new username.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Probiotic

Why were the changes to the multi-probiotic subsection reverted? 05:27, 7 July 2011 Themoneymultiplier (talk | contribs)

See here  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Swansea

The edit I made was motivated by WP's policies and guidelines and I would have made the same edit on any other page, including Cardiff. The summary I made was purely in jest, as is often the case with many other editors when responding to such questionable edits, and the summary applies to editors from other towns who make edits of a limited local importance. I have nothing against Swansea itself and even if I did, my personal feelings would not be incorporated into any edits I make on Wikipedia. Welshleprechaun 10:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP prods

Anyone is permitted to remove a BLP PROD tag after a usable source relating to the claimed notability has been added. You should not have templated User:98.163.75.189 That he was rude to you about it is another matter entirely , and I have warned him about it. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware that anyone had been rude to me, and even if I had it would hardly alter my reaction to the edit. The tag was a standard Huggle produced tag expressing concern about removal of content which in this case was a PROD tag removed without the provision of any additional references which could be validated. I would have reacted the same way without Huggle although in that case the template would probably have been a little less severe.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Preston Brooks

Both locales were named within a couple of years of Brooks' beating of Sumner. Sumner was beaten unconscious and Brooks was celebrated throughout the South for it. Why is that not verifiable when it is in Wikipedia itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.67.242.30 (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I assume this comment relates to your edit of Brooksville, Florida and not to Preston Brooks. It may indeed be referenced elsewhere both in Wikipedia and elsewhere, but without any in-line reference being provided in the edit and without any Wikilink being provided (which would have been easy) and without any edit summary, it is impossible for any uninvolved editor to verify, hence the reversion. Edit summaries are particularly useful in avoiding reverts but in-line references are even better.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:River regulation

Hello Velella, I saw you made this category recently. It currently has a diverse set of articles in it and I am not sure what the purpose of the category is. Every article in Category:Dams could be placed in there and it stands a good chance of being overloaded. Somewhat similar but specific categories are Category:Flood control and Category:Water management. I think the criteria for the category should be better specified or maybe the category re-named or deleted.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I still think this category is better served by Water management and have nom'd it for deletion.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You think this less valid than [[Category:FL-Class Empire of Brazil articles]] ?! Wow. My interest and commitment to Wikipedia after nearly seven years seems suddenly to be fading in incomprehension............  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Terminus

Can you clarify, why a poem named Terminus is listed on Terminus page, but short story by Stanislaw Lem with the same name (well, transcribed, but original Polish name obviously came from the same Latin word) shouldn't be? --188.134.32.80 (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right. Now fixed.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Spillway

Just FYI, I added the comment about overflow channels after noting the frequent use of the term to describe images posted to in Wiki Commons. Is it a regional thing, perhaps? Here also is a Wikipedia article that uses the term: Ponders End. I think the way you edited the article is helpful.Verne Equinox (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Solarisation

Would you be O.K. with the current digital image being replaced with RollerDerbySolarization0714? An in-camera digital solarisation, emulation though it is, should I think be a part of the article, inasmuch as most photography is digital nowadays. kencf0618 (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Alps

Yes, but the original Alps are in Europe, in the case of another Alps, Australian Alps or Southern Alps if needed with the name is enough.--Noder4 (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For your help reverting vandalism at Mohawk people - unfortunately there had been other vandalism by a new named account a minute before that which I've now removed. I've done that myself at times, not checked the recent history and just reverted to earlier vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

PROD vs AFD

This revert, along with this warning, suggest that you need to reacquaint yourself with the differences between the proposed deletion (WP:PROD) and articles for deletion (WP:AFD) processes. In particular, an editor is allowed to remove a PROD template from an article; it's how proposed deletion is contested. And while an explanatory edit summary is recommended, it is not required (see this section). Your use of Huggle was therefore, in this instance, inappropriate. Hopefully, this is not typical of your use of the application. Regards, 88.104.36.157 (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes you're right, it looked so unlike a PROD article that I jumped to the conclusion that it was an AFD. Looking at it and its history it looks as though it really ought to be an AFD so I have tagged it for notability and it if doesn't improve I will look again at AfD.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Strom

Hi. I thought you'd like to know that I've sent the article to AfD here andy (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not quite sure what the righteous indignation above was all about since in the end the author blanked the article and sought G7 AfD.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   10:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Revision history of School of the Holy Spirit

Notable alumnae

Why did you undo the "2005 Outstanding SHSQC Alumnae" contribution to the list? That was an official list that was selected by the School of the Holy Spirit of Quezon City. The names listed there were awarded because they were notable. Here is the document showing proof:

2005 Outstanding SHSQC Alumnae awarded by SHS Honeybadger123 (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Replied at the article talk page.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Kronospan

Hi Velella, May I please ask why you changed the edits I made to the Kronospan article? As an employee of Kronospan I was simply adding factually correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kronospan1 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see your talk page where I have posted two notes; but to repeat. You have an absolute conflict of interest as an employee of Kronospan - please see the appropriate guidance for more information. Secondly your username appears to be in direct violation of the username policy. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   10:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Moorland

I'm totally okay with replacing the lead image or any of the others with one of Wales, including the one that was there before. I just concerned about the placement of the images interfering with readability, not with the exact choice of image. Thanks for the note, Steven Walling • talk 22:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:

As you can see it's just spam, here you can find a short report, but I'm finding out more and more spam... --Vituzzu (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed. Your first edit summary was in Italian, a language of which I have no knowledge. The edit summary that you used on the second edit , had it been used for the first edit, would have prevented a reversion. As it was, it appeared that two threads of a user talk page were being unilaterally deleted without reason - hence the restore.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Wops, I didn't realize Lupin's popup would have taken language settings from my preferences :S

--Vituzzu (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Links to external sites

Hi Velella,

you have marked some external links as spam, however, this is not the target of the links. The links that I have added are interesting for geologists, because this kind of software is not know by the community. They illustrate the use of this kind of knowledge.

Regards, Eduardo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardoestima (talk • contribs) 16:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No - they are clearly promoting specific software packages and are equally clearly spam.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   18:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Lubos Motl

I do not see how my remark on the site about him was not neutral i even gave a source where he said such a thing. Please review my edit once again thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.14.140.105 (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Many reasons; first your edit was indeed a remark not a fact. Second the words you used "...he does so in a bit of a rude manner, sometimes even insultive manner, choosing unproper words to describe other theories..." are your opinion and strongly POV thirdly the source you quoted is a blog which is not acceptable as a reliable citation on Wikipedia. There is probably more of the same article that should be excised as several statements seem to have blogs as their citation.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello Velella! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 20:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciated on a wet Sunday morning .  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Velella has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Talkback

Hello, Velella. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.
Message added 14:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 14:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Velella. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 14:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Velella. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 14:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re:Deletions

Thanks for this, hah, I was getting confused! Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 22:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes - sorry about that I should have butted in elsewhere but your talk page seemed to be where the action was and I only later realised the possible confusion.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, feel free and welcomed to "butt in" on my talk page at all hours, any time. Also, the user's edits should probably be rollbacked. Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 22:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

He's been unblocked now, (the admin says that he made a mistake), what should we do of the user's edits? Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 22:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

There are none remaining, I rolled back all that remained extant. If the edits were genuine and there was real copyright violations I guess I could un-roll them all - but I would need to see some very good evidence for that. I'm not an admin so am not privy to admin tools but at present the whole think reeks of fish .  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but desperately want to assume good faith, so I'm torn, but I've put a note on the admin's discussion saying that if he wants to prove his claims he could take it to WP:CP or WP:ANI, what do you think of those suggestions? Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 22:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree - I too put a note on the admin's talk page and I might raise it with Moonriddengirl‎ for her view.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. At this point I think it's best to remove the copyright material. I would love to paraphrase some of this stuff but simply do not have the time. I would, however like to help put together the few pages of legislators that were entirely deleted. How would you go about doing that? I don't think you can just recreate a page, or can you. FrittataOhio (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that Admins can restore deleted articles. I am not an admin and don't have that capability but I am sure that if you could find a friendly admin to whom you could provide a list of deleted articles and the reasons for their re-instatement, the job could be done. How about the admin who inadvertently blocked you yesterday ?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you remember who that was? How can I check that? FrittataOhio (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes it was Bsadowski1 - try his talk page at User_talk:Bsadowski1. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you find me an admin that would be willing to publish Larry Obhof on the name page? I'm having trouble doing so myself. Thanks. FrittataOhio (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Trying putting {{help}} on your talk page with an explanation of what is needed below. An admin should respond in due course.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we were right to be suspicious after all: [1]. Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 15:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Iron Sky game

Hi, just wanted to clarify the situation with the Iron Sky game(s). "Operation Highjump" is an authorized game project by Silver Quill, but it's still in the beginning so we haven't made much noise about it.

The Chinese scam is usually known just as "Iron Sky" or "Iron Sky: The Last Territory" and is made by Ziiso.

Thanks for keeping an eye on our article and cleaning up stuff, we do appreciate it. --Iron Sky film (Jarmo) (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Residual edits of FrittataOhio

Hello, Velella. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JamesBWatson (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Alprazolam

What are you reverting my edits? The section is tagged for OR, and I am proofreading against refs and removing OR as well as medical advice, as agreed in the discussion. 70.137.157.82 (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Because the original English was clearer and did not require changing.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Please bring that to the discussion before again reverting. Please improve the English, if you see issues. 70.137.157.82 (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If I see good English changed to less good English then I am certainly not going to take that to any discussion page. Please do not change perfectly good English in the first place. It adds nothing to Wikipedia and has negative value.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

For heavens sake, I am not changing the English, I am removing medical advice and WP:OR issues by proofreading against ref. 70.137.157.82 (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Tyra Banks revert

I have tried to remove cleare cases of vandalism from this page twice today. Please do not revert it again. If you must then at least proof read the page to discover the issue so that you can fix it yourself.

Thanks