User talk:Velella

This talk page contents prior to 1st January 2013 have been archived. Please feel free to start new discussions below. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ethical Banking

I apologise, I am a wikipedia novice (and philosophy postgrad) and just happened to be reading the article, and then realised that the philosophy section was both obscure and unclear. The changes were not in content, but rather in rephrasing unclear statements of the positions to make them a little clearer. I deleted one sentence, as it seemed simply irrelevant. If that seems appropriate, then could you replace the changes?

Replied on your (IP) talk page. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, Mary and Joseph!

Hi, I still don't know how to use wikipedia, so I don't know if I can write this here, but the episode didn't lose against the simpsons : http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/12/27/sunday-final-ratings-american-dad-adjusted-up-plus-final-football-numbers/162921/ the simpsons did 2.4/7 family guy did 2.5/8. So what you wrote was incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.4.121.70 (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you actually wrote was The episode beated the simpsons's repet's ratings (2.4/7) by.... and there follows a reference. The reference gives the Simpsons as having 5.54 million viewers whilst Family Guy had 5.49 million viewers. So, in my book, that means that your statement was wrong even if it were written in conventionally spelled English. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Porta Hotel Antigua

Strongly suggest withdrawing your nom, it easily passes GNG. It is definitely a notable colonial hotel. Doesn't stand a chanc of being deleted, even if hotels have a hard time on wikipedia. I hadn't seen the COI account, but that's not a valid reason to delete.. I had already removed my original post and voted keep, obviously a edit conflict explains why.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 23:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bredbury

Oh dear, Velella. Joanne Whalley deleted because she is not notable? You didn't check, did you? Whether anyone can find a citation that she lived in Bredbury is another matter. She did (I went to school with her brother), but I have never been able to find a citation to confirm this, so had not added her. But really, to delete because she is not noteworthy..... 08:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The shorthand of WP doesn't always convey the precise message intended !. I was using "not notable" in the sense of WP:PEOPLE - i.e that there was no evidence that she lived at the town to which her name had been allocated. I had no wish to impune the lady's overall notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I'd assumed you saw the unlinked name and thought, Oh! Yet another vandal after 30 seconds of fame appearing on a Wikipedia page. I obviously did you an injustice. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter S. Thompson

Actually an error on my part, thought I was correcting it, turns out I'm unable to properly parse a sentence. Blame pre-coffee dumbs. Apols. Thanks for the reversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.144.218 (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Marge Simpson

Well, I only have this one source, DVD I'm watching at the moment. I couldn't find that on IMDb though. The line goes "That internet has it all! Today I found out I had the same birthday as Randy Quaid."But yeah, not a big deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.166.253 (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you had just stuck with the date and hadn't speculated about the year and thus about Marge's age, I would probably have let it go. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you just couldn't edit it? It also fits the timeline and there already was speculation of her age being 36 to 40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.166.253 (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope . ~~Huggle doesn't allow free editing of text.~~ I don't do editing with Huggle therefore I would have to find the article and then edit it it in a browser. Also worth bearing in mind that it is still unsourced and other editors may be less tolerant!. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Specifics for revert of organizational edits?

Why did you revert these edits? Your reversion moved images back to improper sections, removed organizational subsections clearly indicated in the preexisting sources cited, moved material to improper locations, undid spelling corrections, deleted sources requested by other editors on the talk pages, and generally violated talk page discussions in which there was not a single editor objection for any edit I made (a rare phenomenon for this article, but likely because the edits were either organizational creations of subsections and relocating information, or providing sources requested by others). You provided no intelligable specifics to understand your edit. Please either provide specifics, or please undo your reversion if you may have made an error. If you decide to undo your reversion, I will hold off further edits until you have a chance to catch up if you request. Otherwise I will continue with the work indicated in the talk page discussions. Thank you. 24.130.156.204 (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. It was an unintended roll-back of multiple edits rather than a reversion of one edit which was intended. I have re-edited to fix it. My concern was the insertion of the word "dominant" which was unsupported by a reference and, if taken on a world view, might not be supportable. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word "dominant" came from the source - footnote 11[1] - "theories and beliefs, other than those intrinsic to the dominant health system". Alt med believers wanted this ambiguous wording, and fact based editors argued that it introduced ambiguities. The talk page consensus seemed to be to include it, but with context that science based medcine was "dominant", thereby including the words for the pro alt med editors, but without the ambiguities introduced obected to by the fact based editors. See the boldfaced print in the middle of this talk page section[2]. Including that one word, qualified that it means science based, might shut down endless arguments from both "sides".

(I should have included edit summaries in each edit. Dumb. Sorry. Especially as that one edit was actually discussed to death at talk, and there appeared a possibility of finally having consensus.)24.130.156.204 (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I have just read through the talk page and totally lost the will to live! A good idea might be to call off the USA, European, Canadian, Australian and NZ editors and let the rural Chinese, South Americans, African and eastern Russians have a go - many of them rely on what is here called alternative medicine. That is the danger of mixing homeopathy and related nonsense in with discussions on well tried herbal and folk remedies, many of which still do work and on which many of our science based medications are based. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I totally withdraw my stupid idea of adding "dominant" in an appeasement effort. That was a cave-in on my part, and will not work, as demonstrated in the edits below. The editor of these warring edits claims he is "new" in one breath, but uses sophisticated citations of niceties of MEDRS in the other. He is arguing to remove NSF as not a good source, as well as removing NYAS, Academic Medicine, etc, and claims a syllogism being "wrong" reasoning as part of his basis to remove the "errors in reasoning" source in the lede, while in another breath makes sophisticated inferential reasoning.

WOODY HAYES

I moved the sentence about his death from a football section down into his personal section. It was in the wrong section. I copy and pasted it so it would retain all the formatting, and then I went back and deleted the erroneous one from above. But I guess you restored what I deleted so now the same sentence will appear twice. I will have to go look at it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.174.45 (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The trick is to use edit summaries so that other editors can know what you are doing. Simply deleting text always looks like vandalism unless explained. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Humour

You edited my addition to a page due to lack of citation. However, the entire section is uncited. Is publication the only validating qualification for wikipedia?

It was an original idea which friends and I agreed was an effective description worthy of mention. I am the original author of the idea.

Also I did re-add the comment which has been removed again.

Are you the self-proclaimed keeper of the meaning of "humour"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.227.128 (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not the self proclaimed keeper of anything. I do however understand how Wikipedia works and one of the things that is deprecated is original research and/or personal opinions or views. I guess this edit falls into both camps. No matter how erudite you and your friends are, Wikipedia will continue to rely on information that can be verified by reliable and robust sources. Sorry Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please define "reliable" and "robust" And I do not consider myself erudite, but merely relevant and even articulate in communicating my insights into life on earth, language. I do not accept you as the arbiter of the reliability of my experience of it and the validity of my analysis. Must I endeavour to collect a heard of followers before I will count as 'robust' enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsterfaith (talk • contribs) 11:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are set out in WP:WHYN which I hope will help. I am not the arbiter as I said above , simply trying to maintain the quality of Wikipedia. I am sure that you can imagine the chaos that might result if every editor put their own definition of Humour into the article - we would potentially have thousands of definitions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About calling people names

Dear sir,

You are using a "HG" link here (diff) which is akin with calling "vandal" people you disagree with (because the first sentence on that link is "Huggle is a Windows application for dealing with vandalism"), which I find utterly discourteous and detrimental to the spirit of cooperation that should exist among Wikipedia contributors.

Yours sincerely,

Teofilo talk 18:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh....... ) No it isn't. It is an automated message from Huggle which always signs its message with HG to indicate that the message was created using Huggle. I don't disagree with you but I do clean up edits where editors remove valid text from articles, as in this case. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are responsible for the content of the message, be it automatic or unautomatic, which you are using. And the removed text was a duplicated text, therefore invalid. The non duplicated content was left intact. Teofilo talk 12:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had you provided any edit summary outlining what you were doing, it might have made life a good deal easier for everyone trying to reduce the volume of vandalism on Wikipedia. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A summary was provided. You are the one making people's lives more difficult because of your providing a very unhelpful summary calling "invalid" a valid edit, and because of your ignorance of the Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers principle. Teofilo talk 16:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

!!)

Thanks for finally doing this edit. It has been on my mind to do every time I see the article, but I was always too cowardly to try to do it myself (even using an anon IP). It is clearly repetitive of what is in the final sentence of the lede first paragraph, and so your summary is right on, and your edit is completely justified. Its like having someone else finally take a chafing burr out of my sock. 24.130.156.204 (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started a section based on your comment

I started a section based on your comment - [3]. At worst, it will focus attention away from inane arguments about NSF not being a reliable source for the lede. At best, it might improve the article and have a topic where every editor is really in a consensus. 24.130.156.204 (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article about the battle of Columbus

Hi, my name's Adrian. I'm from Mexico. All my life I knew that Villa won at Culumbus,but later I discovered new things. I think Culumbus can't be considered a mexican victory neither an american one. Villa attacked Columbus, made damage to the city and then ran away, I don't know if the US army was after him. I'm sorry for my kinda ingorance on this subjects. When I saw the legend "United States victory" I was mad because of my life I was taught that Villa won. I've made similar changes with other articles like The first battle of tabasco and the battle of Mulege that are mexican victories but in this version of wikipedia are tagged as "tactical draw" I hope those actions aren't in order to disgrace Mexico's military history.

Sorry for my bad english.

Sincerely. Adrian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.160.36.222 (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

subject for page deletion

Hello we recently did edits on our company page Alsbridge, to add up-to-date information. I noticed you had mentioned several articles that were not Wikipedia appropriate. I have gone through and deleted all press release links. I appreciate your imput on that matter, as I am fairly new to editing wikipedia for a company page. I would like to have the deletion of our page removed. As I have gone in and deleted all "spam" "advertising" language. If you see other changes or added ins I would really appricate your imput and have our page not be considered for deletion. Thanks. (Johnmeyerson (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)johnmeyerson)[reply]

May I first commend your declaration of interest on the talk page. This is consistent with Wikipedia policy and it helps to understand the motives of those editing. I suspect from your comments that you have also edited in the past from the IP address 65.46.143.230. I note the improvements both by the IP editor and another editor who has twice restored template messages to the article. I regret however that the article still fails WP:CORP in my judgement because of the lack or robust and reliable third part sources. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - please excuse my effort to contact you - I've never had to do this before, never having felt the need to amend Wikipedia. Can you point me in the right direction of where to reply - I added to Bosnia and Herzegovina 94.170.14.238 (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Jackie Carmichael[reply]

Wikipedia Works Fast These Days

Woah, that was some quick action. I happened to notice some vandalism in the Recent Changes, went to revert it, and you had already done it with Huggle. Noticed that it was a vandalism-only account, so I went to report it to AIV. But you had already done that, too. Upon refreshing the page, the user was gone from the list and already blocked. Keep up the good work. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The wonder of Huggle!. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xq28

Hello, Velella. It seems, that i desribed my changes with an edit summary. My memory might be not-so-good, but a quick trip to the revision history of that article cast out all my doubts. The "and noted that the author of this study didn't believe there could be a gay gene at the outset and thus biased his study" part was unsupported by cited source, so i simply changed it so it would be more consistent with Ingrid Wickelgren's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.26.66.17 (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point but it would have been better to have included the ref as an in-line reference rather simply making reference to it in an edit summary and changing the article text associated with an existing reference. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevon Edmonds

I updated the birth year of Kevon Edmonds from April 1956 to April 1966. If he was born in 1956 that would make him older than his older brother, Kenneth "Babyface" Edmonds, who was born in 1958. The age is obviously incorrect. I just changed the information.

As in everything on Wikipedia, any changes in information that may be contentious (and dates of birth are potentially contentious), a reliable reference is needed before a date can be changed. An edit summary would also help. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Names

Hi, I saw your changes and I have read the notable names list so I understand that it needs to be looked at. However, the names have been there since the creation of the page (I did not add them - I simply updated the old list). To be honest I would probably remove them as well in the future but there are people who think they should be there so I want to argue it out with them first. So - I see your point and I think it's a very good one, I want to consider it further though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy.richardson24601 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether some people think the names should be there or not is irrelevant. ACT on Campus doesn't own or control the article on Wikipedia - once it is on Wikipedia it must stick to the rules here and not what any particular group of people think. May I suggest again that the list is removed. I am happy to remove it it that would be politically more acceptable. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly see how waiting a few days before making a change like that is going to be harmful. People have found it useful to see who has been previously involved. If it is to be removed then I will remove it or edit it so that it is more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy.richardson24601 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No a few days isn't going to be a big issue I guess, but I am unsure what the big difference is between deleting them now or later. I'll hang fire for a while and see how progress is made. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on I Need You (album)

The information I posted on the page is either the correct information or an over repeat of same name such as Elton John or Ty Lacy and shorten to last name as seen on several pages on this site and within the page itself. 184.58.0.27 (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elton John remains as Elton John not just as "John" as you left it. Over linking is avoided simply by omitting the surrounding braces and not by omitting a given name. An edit summary would also have helped. Please restore with given names in place please. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored Elton John. 184.58.0.27 (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the updated hCG diet

you allow the Bariatric association of America to add a "professional" statement about how hcg dieting is dangerous, which seems to me to be inappropriate. Thats like US Air calling Delta dangerous. (for lack of a better comparison) I am in a direct position of knowledge about the updated hCG diet protocol, safer and more effective than the information found on the current hcg page. Please consider my new edit as authoritative. I will add studies, which the bariatric assoc. says dont exist (hmmm... I wonder why they would say that? lol) Also, I must insist that the end of the current description of the hcg diet comparing it to prisoners at Aushwitz be removed permanently! This is bombast at best! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.225.56.239 (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that adding promotional text for hCGTreatments / Diet Doc hCG Diets & Weight Loss Plans is in any sense authoritative - it looks like blatant advertising to me. You are very welcome to add authoritative text but please do so in an encyclopaedic way providing reliable and robust sources that are not from a company engaged in selling diets or other products associated with hCG. Regarding the other text mentioned , you are of course at liberty to remove text, provided it is for a sound reason and is supported by an edit summary that explains your actions. It would also help if you signed your posts here and on other talk pages. Thank you. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Madrid

Hello!

Most people who I added are called "madrileños" in their respective entries in both English and Spanish wikipedia, so I don't think it was necessary to add any source.

If you wish, I shall add links in those people who don't have any entry in either wikipedia. --81.37.157.79 (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the issue . In one of your edits you replaced one name with another without giving a reason in an edit summary yet leaving the birth and death dates unchanged. This gave the wrong dates to the new entry - patently wrong and hence my reversion. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what name was? I don't remember right now.. If you are kind enough to tell me, I have no problem giving explanations, or modifying it if necessary. Thanks. (JuandeVillanueva is my nickname). --JuandeVillanueva 00:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies - it was my mistake. You had entered a name and then in the next edit changed the name but kept the dates unchanged - looking at a single edit in Huggle it looked as though you were simply changing names so that the dates would then be wrong.Apologies for that. I was about to go back and fix the problem but I see that you have already completed the job. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Hi - please excuse my effort to contact you - I've never had to do this before, never having felt the need to amend Wikipedia. Can you point me in the right direction of where to reply - I added to Bosnia and Herzegovina 94.170.14.238 (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Jackie Carmichael[reply]

The issue with your edit was that it was highly contentious . Such additions must be supported by reliable and robust references otherwise they are simply one persons point of view(POV). Please see the Wikpedia guidelines on neutral point of view for further information. In addition, the the tone of your addition was not encyclopaedic but rather more like a travel guide. I would suggest gaining some experience making small and appropriate changes to other articles to gain more familiarity with Wikipedia. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

your assertion is purely that - yours. No complaint (so far as I could see) arose from my comment. I am assuming that people like yourself, who "invigilate" on matters posted on Wikipedia check up on sources as well as non-supported comments. No-one could know everything! Perhaps you or others would like to check the background to this story Shelter Tragedy: A biased Media? Posted on January 27, 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.14.238 (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the verbatim text posted here with a link to the relevant page so that any other editors can see the text mentioned. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The site linked is a blog and blogs are not generally considered reliable references. The story is also very local to a particular town in Bosnia Herzegovina and if it was suitable to be mentioned on Wikipedia, it would fit better on that page. I guess the real issue is the contention that the state is cracking down on stray dogs and some of the repercussions lead to cruelty to animals. To substantiate this would require that reliable references from the local TV or press are used in-line with the text to verify the statements. Even so, I would strongly suggest reading WP:UNDUE before adding anything. A section on a state's attitude to dogs is unlikely to be considered significant in most articles about nation states. I would also suggest moving this discussion to a relevant article discussion page as few , if any , other editors will see this discussion but they are much more likely to see a discussion on an article talk page. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Papp

Velella, after adding sources you still refuse to accept my changes. if you have a personal connection to Mr. Papp i suggest you stop editing his page. what i have posted is backed with sources and true. if you continue to show bias i will be reporting you. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.202.47 (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was I who reverted most of your edits; to the contrary, if you continue to add defamatory and non-neutral content, not supported by the sources, I'll ask that your account be blocked, and the articles be protected. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

everything i have posted is backed by sources, i highly doubt you could have read them in the 2 seconds you took to edit my changes. i will be reporting you for violating wiki policy, as i assume you are either Mr. Papp himself, or a friend of his. Editing pages that talk about yourself is highly unethical and counter productive to a website such as wikipedia. if you have a problem with mr. papp being called a doper thats just too bad as it is the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicOsmo88 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, much of it is your malicious venting, as revealed above by the presumably alternate account you've taken. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this debate elsewhere - my talk page is not an appropriate place for such a discussion. Thank you Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for prolonging this here, Velella. I've requested administrative assistance. Cheers, 99.136.252.89 (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No that is fine - I should not have been quite so short - and thanks for taking on the burden of trying to separate out the issue of verifiability from personal assertion. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i did post sources, you were so quick to undo my post however there is no way you could have read them. people who cannot separate personal bias from documented truth are not beneficial to the wiki community. also if you didnt want this on your talk page then you shouldnt have started the convo. again i will say that this is my only and first user name. i created it purely because of this very discussion as i have never come across someone so obviously trolling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicOsmo88 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let us look at this rationally (and I hope that you can read this even if your IP is blocked). Your edit is here. There is no source quoted nor any reference quoted. There is no edit summary at all to give anyone any hint as to how they should view the edit. If you had a Wikipedia entry about yourself (which you may or may not have), I am sure that you would be most upset if anyone posted information such as that which you posted unless it could be shown to be demonstrably true. In your edit, there was no evidence. As an aside, comments that criticise editors or cast doubts on their motives are not a good idea and continuing in this vein could end up in a block. Please remain civil even if you feel hard done by. Thank you. For the record I have no idea who Mr Papp is, I haven't read the article and have no special wish do to do. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

remain civil? that is laughable coming from you velella. youve been cited as being rude and offensive on several occasions and exhibit all the qualities of arrogance so plainly its disgusting. i would suggest, again, that you keep to editing articles you actually have knowledge of. semantically editing an article to improve its flavor and readability does not require sources, and as youve repeatedly shown, you do not read them anyway. as you have admitted to not reading the article, or the sources, i would like to call into question your ability as an effect and productive editor of wikipedia. if, for example, someone adds a line to an article that is factually true, and supported by references already mentioned in the article you, as an editor, have the obligation to read the entire article before determining whether or not the pre-existing reference is adequate. if you feel hellbent on placing a reference at the end of every sentence that contains a fact, and making duplicate references, i suggest you take it upon yourself to do so and not simply mass delete relevant, proven, and referenced posts. you fail as a wiki community member, and your attitude is conducive to only one response, disdain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.202.47 (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri1999

Please discuss the issue here so that I don't have to waste my time on this over and over for the 7th time and 3rd year. Thanks http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#To_me_this_is_promotional Dmitri1999 Talk , 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Rome

Good Morning Velella
and thanks for your post! Regarding the Spanish Steps picture in Rome article, I fully agree with you. I reverted a last time his addition and posted a warning on his talk page. After the next reversion, I will report him to WP:ANEW. Alex2006 (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the problem has now resolved itself. Thanks for you support. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Herrera

I'm sorry. 78.183.83.218 (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Hope you will be back for some constructive editing. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Anna Baltzer

Thanks for your work in beating back the vandals! It's an endless job. I just wanted to let you know, though, that the suspicious edit by an anonymous user that you reverted on Anna Baltzer was partially supported by a source already cited on the page, though that user clearly was speaking from a non-neutral point of view, and seemed to be hijacking a different citation. I put that material (as much as was really supported by the source) back into the article at a more appropriate place. I just wanted to give you a gentle reminder that while maintaining articles is important, by digging a little deeper we can help even new, uneducated users to make meaningful contributions. Anyway, thanks again for all your work! -- Super Aardvark (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that you mistake me. I was also proposing to remove the source as well because I have concerns about the neutrality expressed there. I am however seeking further clarity. The Gatestone Institute is very clearly not what it claims to be. I have no problem with people being exposed for what they are not, but reading more deeply this does seem like a coordinated campaign to discredit a supporter of Palestine from an institution that always seems to report favourably on Israel and always critically on the Palestinian side. Doesn't look balanced to me. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lewishousden

Wanted to pop over and let you know that a user you've previously warned, User talk:Lewishousden has and vandalized a page I monitor, David Fanning (loyalist). See the diff here. I have given him a final warning. Any assistance you may provide is appreciated. Cdtew (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now reported. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Lewis (American football)

You undid a link change I made on Darren Lewis (American football) but you didn't bother to actually check and see that the original link was now dead and I had updated it to the correct link. Don't you think you could have at least looked at the change to see if it was worth doing before reverting it and wasting both of our time? MordredKLB (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. I undid a change by IP: 130.164.69.74 - was that you ? The change I undid was unmarked by any edit summary and it changed one blog reference for another. Blogs are generally not considered reliable references on Wikipedia and I ought really to have removed the whole sentence but I hoped that there was some shred of truth there. Without any given reason, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the edit was unproductive. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rupaul's Drag Race

I changed back Alaska's and Detox's names to their actual name that they use when performing. Please see http://www.alaskathunderfuck.com/index2.html and http://www.facebook.com/Detoxifierce to verify. 137.186.233.90 (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri1999

Hello! Your name pops up within this thread at WP/AN. You may wish to comment there. -- Hoary (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heinz Fisher

Dear "Vellela", as you are a novice, perhaps you should not go around fiddling with factual contributions, rather gain experience through productive editing. Your wrongful edit of Heinz Fisher (Austrian President), and subsequent edit of Sonja Kohn (Austrian Investment Banker associated with Bernie Madoff) were a bit hasty, as there should be plenty of references available to competent and productive wikipedians, and one should desire to be included amongst such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.122.39.254 (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are such sources then please provide them. Edits of the this nature will always been reverted unless accompanied by reputable sources. I note that I am not the only editor to have reverted your previous edits for the same reason. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

editions to robakidze's page

hi velella, i have realized i made changes without references and I fixed it right away. please feel free to contact me at publishing.im at gmail.com if you have any further comments and I will be happy either to provide feedback or make appropriate amendments. best IRENE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.73.31.45 (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Heart edits

I am personally a founding member, the producer of the projects mentioned, and an owner in the group, Mountain Heart. Nothing stated in the edits is not verified fact.

Now, seeing that your prior response was nothing more than an attempt to be rude, for a reason i don't really follow... How would you suggest, i might go about "citing" my information, if that is what is necessary? I'm fairly confused as to why there is a wealth of inaccurate information being allowed to exist on this page, while i attempt to update with more precise, more current, and more factual data? thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.249.158 (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No rudeness intended but I guess you don't share the same dialectical background as I do. Ho hum. I reverted your edit because it was a simple copy of material from other web-sites. This is copyright violation (cf my edit summary) This is not permitted in Wikipedia and so I reverted it. In future if you would like a serious answer, please pose a serious question. Saying " I AM the source of this information" and "lol" does not encourage any editor to engage in dialogue. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many apologies. I'm admittedly foreign to the wiki vernacular, and honestly wasn't even aware that an editor, such as yourself might be involved. In regards to the material from other websites bit that you mention... I actually, very literally, own the website the information was brought forth from, therefore, copyright infringement ought not be a concern, correct? As well, when today I stumbled upon the incorrect information on the wiki page, and began to attempt to make it current, i realized it was a healthy amount of data, so i used another program to proofread, then copied and pasted that in. Might that have set off the alarm as well? Willing to do what I need to for this to be accurate, but not sure what step i might take next, given these circumstances. thanks again for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.249.158 (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two ways to add the material. Probably the easiest is to paraphrase material from an existing and reliable source and quote the source as a reference using the syntax <ref>[http://www.etcetcetc.com name of source ]</ref>. The paraphrasing must be in your own words and no too close to be considered close paraphrasing. The alternative is to "donate" copyright to Wikipedia as explained here. Hope that this helps. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello, my name is Tom Arents. Thank you for your comment. Last year I finished my dissertation about Belgian and Japanese Coalfields. Today I've decided to link some pages of Japanese and Belgium Coal industry / heritage. (furthermore, I would like to create some new pages in Dutch (my mothertongue) and by this way to post the content of my dissertation online. But Wikipedia is quite new for me. I would like to change the title of Amakusa Coalmine to Amakusa Coalfield, since I created a login only today, that's impossible for me. Could you do that for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterTomA (talk • contribs) 17:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move done as requested to Amakusa coalfield (note the lack of capitals on coalfield as required by WP:MOS). Previous title(s) will now work as re-direct pages. Hope that is OK. Regards. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterTomA (talk • contribs) 17:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contested speedy deletion of Harlem shake (meme)

Please see the talk page for more information as to why the article you tagged for speedy delete (A7) was contested. --184.146.121.223 (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Prentiss

You removed my addition about Ann Prentiss. You made a mistake. What I added was in the Imdb biography of Ann Prentiss. Here's what Imdb has which is very close to what I put:

Displayed signs of emotional and mental problems in later years. In 1997 Prentiss was convicted in a Santa Monica, California court of terrorizing her family. She was convicted of making terrorist threats, assault with a firearm, battery, and solicitation to commit the murder of her brother-in-law Richard Benjamin and her father. She was sentenced to 19 years in jail for the crimes.

I also added a 2nd citation with this information which is gone. I hope this information isn't being censored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.240.20.173 (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pentir

Hi. I've replied on my talk page. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alsbridge

Alsbridge, which you recently nominated for deletion and was deleted, has been recreated. I tagged it with G4, but an admin declined to delete it because the content is different. I just thought you might want to take a look at the article and decide if it should go to AFD again or not. Peacock (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I have looked again at all the many refs and it seems no better this time than last so have re-nominated it for AfD. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar S. Cahn text

Hi Velella,

I removed a large chunk of text from the Edgar S. Cahn article because it kept getting flagged and deleted. I believe I have noted in a number of places that I have been asked by Dr. Cahn himself to create a Wikpedia page for him. I had copied and pasted some text from a biography he has approved (and posted to a number of websites himself). Dr. Cahn would actually like me to merge this with information from four documents, but we decided it would be best to establish an article with a pre-existing set of text he liked and revise the article over time. The text kept getting auto-deleted, so I gave up and started typing from scratch until I had a chance to guide Dr. Cahn through the process of contacting e-mail to Wikipedia (a task he found rather confusing and had to ask for help with several times) to confirm that he wants me to write this on his behalf, and is donating all of the text and images to be used freely by anyone on the internet.

Tl;dr- I deleted the text because it kept getting auto-deleted as I was in the process of editing it. I am writing a biographical article for someone I know because demanding that he do it himself with all he has on his plate would constitute elder abuse.--Christine M. Clark, B.Sc 02:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of WP:AN discussion

Hello Velella, this is notification of a WP:AN discussion regarding an editor you have dealt with. The thread is: WP:AN#Community ban for BLP-violating, sock-hopping conspiracy theorist from Hyogo, Japan. Appreciate your input, thanks! Zad68 18:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

thankyou!

7531abc (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semen quality

Why did you delete my edit about how to make semen taste better? It's informational — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.62.122.195 (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. It is unreferenced junk Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion to life history

Sorry for the improper citation! New to this so don't really know how to do it or what the rules are yet. Actually was trying to be helpful to add a reference. Is it just the external link that is the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.91.54.8 (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. your edit history shows the addition of links to a book or books by one author and sold by one publisher. Such behaviour which appears to be promoting a book rather than simply adding relevant references is deprecated on Wikipedia and is termed citation spam. That was my reason for reversion. I also note that this pattern of editing is continuing. I would strongly suggest stopping or you may find your IP blocked from editing Wikipedia. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sorry I didn't see your note initially so didn't realize I was doing anything inappropriate. Wrote you as soon as I noticed it. Again newbie. So sounds like it's the links and the citations then. Will work on it.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.91.54.8 (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I tried again. Could you have a look and let me know whether my most recent edit attempt is more appropriate? I added a bit of content/information, listed three sources, and didn't include any external links. If it doesn't work, I can remove it, but I think maybe it's ok???

Replied on your talk page - and , for the record, the answer was no. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a talk page? Who knew? Will check it out....

Velella, ok, one more follow up note. Just want to say that I undid your reversion but took out the reference in question. I thought it was a good edit and that the page needed the help (I had added another source to this page previously cause I thought the page needed it- incidentally the page actually asks for citations). At any rate, I believe this edit is ok. If not, I'm gonna have to throw in the towel on this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.91.54.8 (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hall

Hi - sorry I reverted you here. No offence meant - I thought that it might be helpful to have that in the lead as it's now part of his notability (>notoriety?) and it might slow down those wanting to add "pedo", "rapist" etc in a maybe-truthful but abusive fashion. I thought that as there was a ref for it further down the page it was probably OK in the lead. But anyway, the page has now been protected, so concerned editors can try to sort it out into something encyclopaedic without having to fight off a torrent of abuse. (Not that I don't think he deserves abusing, I must add - just that I don't think WP should be a vehicle for it.) Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No offence taken- I was sure that, if it was true, somebody would come back with a robust reference and then nail the whole article down until the furore passed over. I was just applying a little sticking plaster to an open wound until the doctor came along! Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Nice analogy. Thanks! Glad I have not annoyed you. Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 in American music

You have got to be kidding me. What I'm adding to this article is NOT VANDALISM. It is valid. (And since when does making things ABC order equal vandalism?) Please quit reverting valid sources! 71.249.246.218 (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook is not a valid source on Wikipedia. Velella ^{Velella Talk}

If you type SFOG in the search it goes to Chemical Oxygen generator for some reason.

SFOG stands for Six Flags Over Georgia.~Rickyony

Thanks.

Thanks for the message, I'm just doing my job, helping out on a couple of entries, thanks for noticing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humble2468 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So Sorry!!

Velella, I am so sorry for any changes to Alien Software which could be viewed as me attempting to vandalise the article. I only wished to alter one spelling which I thought was incorrect, recently I have discovered that I the spelling is indeed, correct. Many apologies, Matthew Hook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Hook (talk • contribs) 19:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	hello Velella, i'm Evilan123 and i'm a begginer in wkipedia i nee to know how to create a new article will u help me? thanks Evilan123 (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Real Life Barnstar
	Hello Velella, i recieved ur message and i need to know how to make that thing you did with this user is a.... and also how do you create a new article Gopi123 (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	I was reading the article India and i was listing to the Indian National Anthem and somebody mistranslated it i know because i'm indian and that mis translation might be breaking the terms of use. Gopi123 (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Korea ginseng corporation

I updated more references about the article, which was really hard to find the references, but I tried. Hope there's no more need to edit the article. Wow, it's really harsh for the non-English speaker to upload the article.

I agree that there are very few reliable references, hence one of the reasons for nomination it for deletion - it simply isn't notable. It is also very clearly an advertisement. I am unclear what the reference to the problems of non-English speakers refers to. I wasn't aware of any problems with the English or language used. The problem is that this is, at present, an advertisement masquerading as an article. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	hello i need to know how to attach a link Evilan123 (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beech

Thanks for your interest; I didn't expect such a speedy response. You've still left me in the dark though because I'm still not sure what "fill in" means. Can you enlighten me? Jodosma (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the help with the deletion nomination. Your comments captured my concern over the page. I always think about getting my own account, but prefer more experienced users review my decisions. I appreciate the quick help. 216.116.162.226 (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry and thank you...

I made that edit to Robert Bales quickly out of anger and I'm glad you reverted it. For that I'm sorry. I have to thank you because without your edit, I may have never learned about the genus Velella (other than the Man o' War, of course). I'm a bit of a biology nerd myself. 67.142.173.21 (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every single edit from this IP address has been reverted and drawn reprimand because it was vandalism. This is an insincere apology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agbecker (talk • contribs) 01:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Becker entry -- my edit was reasonable. I am not sure why you reverted.

Hi. This is WOTW. I did explain the addition (and it is correct -- it is just moving up a fact stated later in the wiki page).

Your edit changed He is currently a Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution to He is currently a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution.. In my book that is removing content. Nowhere else in the article is the Hoover institute labelled as conservative. It may well be for all I know but there is no statement and neither is there a source for the statement. So it wasn't moving up a fact stated later in the wiki page". No contest. Velella Velella Talk 21:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is WOTW. I added back in the removal of content to placate you (although I find it cumbersome reading). However, the addition of "conservative" is a good addition, and is now cited. You also undid quality punctuation edits. I re-added those.

User doing vandalism

User RTPking doing vandalism at Tenali Ramakrishnapage.Please tell the user before removing a content talk on talk page.kindly see Difference between revisions.diff1,diff2.please notice this.thank you.Eshwar.om ^{Talk to}^me 05:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updating my Company's information

I am trying to update my companies information to the correct data and you keep reverting to the old information. Colony Capital (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, I am. Unfortunately for you, neither you nor your company own or control the information on Wikipedia. What is here is what is supported by robust and independent sources. What you were adding was not appropriately sourced and you were deleting vast swathes of information in so doing. Incidentally, your name breaches the Wikipedia username policy. - please the message on your talk page. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding honorary degrees

My apologies, I'm new to the etiquette on this. Is it okay to reference honorary degrees of a person if a source is provided? Your comment elsewhere implied that this wouldn't be allowed even with a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.110.49.80 (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is perfectly OK to reference an honorary degree on a biography article but only if it is both relevant and encyclopaedic. In general a list of honours, should be a complete list to demonstrate how well respected an individual was or is. Including just a single degree in the absence of others would nearly always look biased. Thus singling out a single institution and going through biographies adding that award to many single pages would be probably be inappropriate. It might well give the impression that the editor was trying to promote a particular institution rather than providing encyclopaedic information. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you send to me a letter about my editing of the article TLV(Tel Aviv):

My edit was right , I work in TLV in weather company, I edit the temperature with the new information of the wather in TLV... Now the article is right and have a new information, but TY about your opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.211.106 (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit is not supported by the quoted references. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photoreceptor cell

Hi. I see that you have removed the above ref. Why? Thanks, --Hordaland (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A whole series of edits were made by a single editor promoting research by one particular author/ researcher - they have all been removed as academic link spam. If you have special expertise in the area of Photoreceptor cells area and the paper is especially valid bearing in mind Wikipedia policy on the use of secondary sources rather than primary research, you are of course at liberty to restore it. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, you are quick! Thanks for the explanation. --Hordaland (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Big Obukhovsky Bridge

Bolshoy Obukhovsky Bridge is a proper noun, Bolshoy (Big) also shouldn't be translated as in case with "Bolshoy (Bolshoi) Theatre". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.25.228.55 (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps the better solution would be to request the article be re-named. Whilst the title says Big rather than Bolshoy, then any references in the text must also say Big unless they are explaining the issue itself. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Telephoto lens

Please explain why you consider my addition to 'sounds unlikely'? This is quite a common knowledge among large format photographers, please refer for example to: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses-primer/ and http://photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/003BCg

What I said also was that it would need references to support the text you inserted. You have provided two references neither of which is especially reliable in the sense that they are not authoritative publications on Photography but in the absence of others they are probably OK. What the sources say is not exactly what you said which was

This applies quite otherwise in case of large format lenses. As a camera usually has a bellows, typical large format lens is physically much shorter than its focal length. A telephoto lens is heavier and longer then its non-telephoto counterpart of the same focal length and speed, due to more complicated design. It is, however, still shorter then its focal length and allows using less bellows extension at the expense of image circle.

Part of your statement - that telephoto lenses are more complex than their long focus equivalents at the same maximum aperture - is already covered in the main article text. However, your point that they are significantly bulkier and heavier than their long focus equivalents when used in large format cameras because the bellows contains much of the refracted light path and does not require a physical tube is worthy of note in my opinion. I would support an edit along those lines with the inclusion of the references quoted above. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Reference From Dmoz Open Directory

Hi Vellela. Just want to know why you removed my reference on the kitchen page of Wikipedia to the Dmoz directory here: http://www.dmoz.org/Business/Construction_and_Maintenance/Design/Kitchen_and_Bath/. Dmoz is one of the most trusted sources on the net and most relevant to the category at hand. Please explain. Karlstadler (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because when I looked at the site it appeared to be simply a listing or companies and enterprises selling various aspects of kitchens and bathrooms and their equipment and accoutrements - a directory by any other name. A directory is rarely or ever a reliable source for encyclopaedic information. Hence my reversion. Did I miss something more notable ? Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I thought Dmoz might be a valuable source I might be mistaken. Thanks for the info. I will keep that in mind before recommending another website. Regards Julian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlstadler (talk • contribs) 20:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schenectady -

I am one of the property owners who fought making the block bounded by Jay, Liberty, etc, an historic district. This is how I know it's not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.120.36 (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt it, but this is Wikepedia and all potentially contentious statements must be supported by a reliable third party source. Sorry, but that's how it goes. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nettle edit

Hi Velella: Please check you reversion of my edit on the nettle page. The edits I deleted still look inappropriate to me: Nettles are things that hurt people and make them need plasters. They always grow behind sheds. Dock leaves can make them better. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry about that. I guess a slip of the mouse which reverted the wrong article. Most unintended. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Pinethicket (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Nettle

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. You appear to have accidentally reverted to a vandalism edit. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Andrewpmk | Talk 18:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Niki1984

Thanks for your work removing linkspam added by Niki1984. I ran into him when he attempted to add a poor quality link to the Bollywood article. A quick look at his user contributions indicates that he's been doing this for a while, on a broad selection of articles. Have we caught all his linkspam? I do not have the time and energy to track down everything he's done, nor do I know the best place to report him. I wonder if he is charging for his "services" ... Zora (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I have tracked down a few of his (her?) contributions and reverted them. When I have a moment I will do a more through check. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Soul 06:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Hey Zora and Velella I would like to know that the purpose to add links is to add information for the subject matter. And I think that is the purpose of Wikipedia. I will take your action positively (even though so many such links exist on those pages). Can you do me a favor? We will send you content with section and page details and after your approval we will make them live and if you have any suggestion for link/information let us know and we will optimize them accordingly.

Looking forward to your reply. Niki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niki1984 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about getting others to approve your edits, it is about reading and understanding the principles of Wikipedia. In particular please look at the the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, and especially the first, to understand why your edits have been reverted. Adding links disguised as text entries is called link-spamming and is always reverted when it is seen. There may be many more examples still around around but that does not make it right. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Igloo is back!

We are proud to announce that Igloo is once again functioning. This message was sent by TyAbot for Kangaroopower, one of Igloo's current maintainers at 20:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

WJU edit

I am flattered that you think I am an assistant professor of Information Sciences at Wheeling Jesuit University (BTW, where did you come up with that info?) but no, I am just lowly data guy. I initially edited the WJU page since it was severely outdated and contained several inaccuracies. I sort of know something about the subject so I was just trying to set the record straight.-- Rj.seward (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well there was this, but I do accept that you might alternatively be this although the photos look to be of the same person. Perhaps it is not surprising that I should be confused. However, the issue remains the same that as an employee or contractor for the University , you have a potential conflict of interest which ideally should be stated on your user page so that other editors can understand your viewpoint and can take a view as to whether your edits are un-biased or whether they paint a too glossy view (or in some instances of disgruntled employees) a too jaundiced view. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To set the record straight, I do work for WJU in an information retrieval & presentation capacity and I have updated my user page to reflect this. Yes, I found the DC DrupalCon page after I posted the above, and I do apologize for the misinformation. This is indeed me and I did submit this info when I registered for the DC DrupalCon in 2009, but the part about being an assistant professor of Information Sciences is only true to the extent that I did assist a professor in one (1) web design class. WJU never actually recognized me as such, and will not show this in my job history. So, my bad here and I apologize for the unnecessary fluff. I do accept your point about the potential conflict of interest and I am really doing my best to present a neutral point of view.

Answer

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

== Spengler's civilization model

Please see the editing history before reverting me. I did put an summary in, then clubot reverted me, after I reported it as a false positive I forgot to re-add the summary. User 97ytkljgg789 is adding much unsourced content & at least two other editors - bobraynor and Ben Ammi - are also removing this. also see the report at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Spengler.27s_civilisation_model, plase undo your revert and remove the fringe OR. than ks 78.105.23.195 (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A slight problem

Hi,
Why did you make this edit? You reinserted huge quantities of awful content and then warned somebody who was trying to fix the article. bobrayner (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PAUL

Hello Velella, thank you very much for improving my English grammar. I hope you do the same next time. Regards --Peter in s (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, can you take a look on that too? --Peter in s (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I Did Include an Explanation in the Edit Summary.

Look under the history. I changed back the information. --24.62.109.225 (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]