Jump to content

User talk:Velella

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2605:e000:110f:2d2:c642:4589:6f71:8487 (talk) at 20:32, 20 November 2017 (→marisha ray). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This talk page contents prior to 26th April 2017 have been archived. Please feel free to start new discussions below.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Rev. Prof. Prem Saran Satsangi

Hi Velella,

The information you are deleting on the page is sourced to the the Original Article, Systems movement:Autobiographical Retrospectives published in the International Journal of General Systems (Ref: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03081070500422869?src=recsys) and has been suitably referenced. The edits at the moment make the remainder of the text look out of context. Please advice.

Regards, Qncs --Qncs (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chaucer

I filed the AIV. David in DC (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had to take an hour out there. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   22:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Louise Gittleman

Hi Velella, I just wanted to let you know, I inserted the speedy deletion template on the "Ann Louise Gittleman" page. Mnh429 (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that, but it does not justify the misuse of this speedy deletion process. Therefore I removed the template. This is not an appropriate way to pursue a disagreement about content.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Bedowyn

Hello Velella. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Bedowyn, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: having a song featured in a notable video game indicates significance. Thank you. SoWhy 19:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Destination Imagination

Hi, I'm not an admin, just a prod patroller checking the prods every day. The AFD should have been highlighted on the talkpage by the closing admin in 2008 as that is the correct procedure but for some reason it wasn't done or was deleted, having it highlighted on the talkpage is a quick way to check, previous prods should be highlighted there as well but very rarely are. I have no view on the article except that it is presently non-notable and would suggest AFD, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon sustained competitive advantage

I don't know if you noticed, but this page was recreated after it was speedy deleted by me. I deleted it on the basis that the author requested deletion (G7). I assumed that they had given up with the project, so I did not give any consideration to your A11 speedy request. You might want to consider reinstating the speedy tag, depending on how you now feel about the article. SpinningSpark 14:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will take another look. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   15:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Landon Newsom

I made a mistake while creating the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landon_Newsom and it was listed for deletion because I hadn't finished putting notable references on the page. I've added those references to appearances of her music on MTV and 90210 as well as guest vocals on The Used album among other things. Can you reconsider your position on deletion please?

I believe that it is always best for other editors to form a view independent of the nominator. I am content to let the AfD run its course.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SINGER NEEL NAIK

Don't delete this information please cause this is my own and it's real information NEEL75 NAIK (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Software

Hi Velella, I have altered the Rocket Software page in the following ways: (1) I have removed most citations that link to Rocket's website, and (2) I have added several third party citations. If these adjustments are to your satisfaction, please remove the tags. Thank you. Aaron verb (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Aaron_verb[reply]

Hello again, Velella. To follow up to my previous message: I'd like to request again that you take a look at the Rocket Software page that you tagged for tone and notability. I believe that you'll find that the page, as it currently stands, resembles the pages of any software company of comparable size. If you have any further concerns, please let me know what you'd like me to fix. Thank you. Aaron verb (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the tag and the material that it referenced.  Velella  Velella Talk   07:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addition NaOH Baume'

Please Addition my baume' formula Plabon sarker (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit had no supporting sources, made no sense on its own and was misplaced in the article. Please gain some more experience with Wikipedia doing small corections and adding relevant and good sources to unsourced text. That should help in enabling more significant additions like the test edit that you made on Sodium hydroxide. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   21:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved back to draft:Odoi Yemoh

Hello Velella, You moved this(deleted page)back to draft Odoi Yemoh. I appreciate your work in helping to ensure articles meet standards. After following a couple of links for article review. I ended up on the help chat platform where I posted the link to the article. I was given some feedback which suggested that I take out some references as they were simply profiles or announcements. It was also suggested that some sentences were 'unencyclopedic'. After delaing with the above issues, I moved it into mainspace. Did I miss a step? Sorry to bother you as I'm pretty new to Wikipedia. Manuelodoi (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you missed the critical step. Unreviewed articles moved directly from Draft to mainspace are at serious risk of deletion. Draft articles are protected against deletion unless they are overtly promotional, copyright violations or defamatory. When a draft is ready for main space it should be submitted for review and it is up to other, uninvolved and experienced editors to agree whether it is ready for main space. I note that the article is still at Draft. In general it is much better to go to articles for creation to create new articles where it will tagged appropriately. However, I have submitted your article for review. You may still amend it while it is at review. Velella  Velella Talk   07:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Livia Nichifor

Dear Velella, I thank you wholeheartedly for the message! I pray you with all my heart to help me edit my article Livia Nichifor correctly. Below I send you relevant additional data. Faithfully Yours, Al Balint--Al Balint (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Whole content of article posted by Al Balint deleted by Velella)

Regrettably none of that satisfies any claim for notability. Please read the Wikipedia notability guidelines for a more lucid explantation of what it is exactly that sources have to establish. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   18:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(More new content of article posted by Al Balint deleted by Velella)

It isn't me you need to convince. This material should be in the article or posted on the article talk page. Nobody else reads this page and I always leave it to other, uninvolved, editors to make decisions about deletions that I have proposed.  Velella  Velella Talk   09:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You, the material is now in the article and on the article talk page. Faithfully Yours, --Al Balint (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Velella, I do not know Pafsanias , Wintereu, Snichifor and Serbannichifor.--Al Balint (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Al Balint (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Velella,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 809 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Alli Armstrong

Hello Velella. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Alli Armstrong, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: hosting a show on a notable channel indicates significance. Thank you. SoWhy 10:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed that this article be deleted Makrifat Cinta:

Have provided enough references for the movie. Please check before requesting for deletion.

Please feel free to let me know if you need any more queries about the movie. I am here to help you out.

Refs belong on the article page , not here. The references you have added are not in-line references and many appear to be press releases, youtube refs etc which are not acceptable references. Please remove all references that are not truly independent and published by a reliable sources. Those that remain should be properly cited as in-line references so that readers can see what part of the text the references are supposed to support. Then, and only then, will I review the article. Unless the quality improves, it remains at risk of deletion.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


It is a movie. So the movie will have press releases and interviews. The movie boasts about a star studded and award winning cast and crew. They have linked the movie page to their wikipedia profile too. I have linked their profile too. You can check their wikipedia page too for reference. No actors will give press release without working in the movie. There has been enough evidences that the movie is happening and there has been lot of noise around the movie. You didnt go through the links which I have shared in the reference section. All the top media websites have covered the movie and they have written articles. Those websites are not self editable or editable by public. So they carry only authentic information. Articles which they carry in their website is all authentic. You can reliable sources to verify that too. Request you to read those before deleting or proposing for deletion. Also when there is a content added by someone, respect them and their content. I spent my quality time in adding information, so that others will be benefitted about it. Thats what Wiki is all about.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hari 2914 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I certainly did go through the links, hence my comments above. Please read WP:GNG to understand the relationship between references and notability on Wikipedia. Press releases count for nothing and a "lot of noise" counts for even less.  Velella  Velella Talk   08:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Listing of past AfDs

Hey, I just saw your comment at WT:Deletion process about not have a list of past AfDs. If the title is the same as the past AfDs, using the "What Links Here" tool should help. It will even show links coming in to a deleted article without needing to be an admin, see [1]. While its not perfect, in that you would need to check before your AfD manually, it does give you one option. Monty845 03:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I hadn't thought to try that. It still omits the recreations with slightly different capitalisation which the bot seems to be able to spot, but it is certainly a significant help. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   08:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Lorena Maraschi

Hello Velella. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lorena Maraschi, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Subject might be important/significant (see also Google News/Books hits for this subject) / use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead to allow other editors to participate in this decision. Thank you. SoWhy 19:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Quick work on the 'sock'-ing El cid, el campeador (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I was just getting fed up with kids playing here and wasting our time. Why couldn't they go and kick a football around instead, like kids used to do ?!  Velella  Velella Talk   19:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Samira Khan Mahi

Dear Velella, I am giving 3 references : 1. http://thedailytribunal.net The Daily Tribunal - This is renowned news paper of Bangladesh.Please visit the website for more details. This is not a blog.

2. http://www.thedailystar.net The Daily Star - This is alos renowned news paper of Bangladesh.Please visit the website for more details. Please also check epaper of today is available in website. This is not a blog.

3. http://thedailynewnation.com The New Nation - This is also renowned news paper of Bangladesh.Please visit the website for more details. Please also check epaper of today is available in website. This is not a blog.

All above references is leading newspaper of Bangladesh. Why are you commented this is only blogs and other Bangladesh actress/actor already create his/her Wikipedia page with reference to above news papers. Please check other celebrities pages of Bangladesh.

Whether or not other celebrities have pages here is not relevant to notability. I will let other editors decide on the merits of this case.  Velella  Velella Talk   12:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sareen Sports Industries (AfD)

Hi Valella! Any chance you can have another look at the article above, and, if you think the issues you raised earlier have now been addressed, remove the AfD tag? (It has been up for consideration for a while, now.) If not, is there anything you would recommend to improve the article? Thank you. By the way, I agree with your other AfD, for the article about the SS Ton, and I think that page is moving in the direction of being deleted, or at least merged with the page about the parent company Sareen. Climate7298 (talk) 01:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sutter speedy deletion

Hi Velella,

I don't believe the wikipedia page I created Sam Sutter, should be speedily deleted from wikipedia. If you visit the page List of Mayors of Fall River, Massachusetts, you will find that, including Sam Sutter, four of the last five elected mayors of Fall River, Massachusetts have pages of their own. Fall River is one of the most populous cities in Massachusetts; thus, its mayors are significant public figures who are deserving of their own pages. Anyone interested in learning more about the history of city politics would certainly want to learn about the former heads of its municipal government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Css1990x (talk • contribs) 01:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Sadie Vidal

Hello Velella. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sadie Vidal, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: being a major party candidate for a parliamentary seat indicates significance. Thank you. SoWhy 09:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. There was no evidence that she was in fact selected by the Constituency party for the seat. Now at AfD as failing WP:POLITICIAN  Velella  Velella Talk   14:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]



Re Jet Cards

The jet card page is missing about 20 relevant companies. I created links from the Wikipedia Jet Card page to the appropriate page on each company website thinking that would be 100% verifiable -- It seems that having a page missing 80% of the relevant information is not very useful to users. How can I help in improving the page?

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

Thanks, Doug — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douggollan (talk • contribs) 02:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should properly on the article talk page and not here. However, the brief answer is that however notable or not Jet card is, the companies that you are linking are not notable. You seem to be confusing Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia with a commercial site. It isn't. There is neither a requirement to list the companies involved nor is it in any way desirable. Wikipedia is not an advertising site for Jet cards. As an editor with a conflict of interest on this subject, you should not be editing this page or associated pages at all. On a separate issue, please can you re-instate your COI declaration (without all the promotional guff) on your user page. Thank you. Velella  Velella Talk   08:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am dense, but if I look up a page on airlines, there is a comprehensive list of airlines -- see below

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

Hi Velella, If I wanted to see a list of aviation companies offering a jet card - where do I find them? I would think if there is a jet card page on Wikipedia, I would want an 'encyclopedic' list of those companies. As I know who they are - I thought - if I provided the list with direct reference to their website (proving they offer a jet card) that would be OK, but I understand not.

Would another way to find a 3rd party reference I was not involved in (I am an expert in private aviation writing for Forbes) that mentions that company and that they offer jet cards and provide a link to that. I use Wikipedia ALL the time - it is invaluable and it drives me crazy to see a page about something I know a lot about that is so lacking and not correct. I am just trying to help. Thanks, Doug — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douggollan (talk • contribs) 09:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, please discuss on the article talk page and not here. Nobody except you and me read this page.  Velella  Velella Talk   09:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for Deletion

Hey there, would you be able to give me good reasons why you nominated my article for deletion? Also, you deleted a large chunk of information/facts that took awhile to put up, they were relevant and factual information. Thanks.~~noahtyrell~~ Noahtyrell (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)noahtyrell[reply]

Noahtyrell The text I deleted was extreme promotional puffery and text supported only by the personal web-site of the article subject. Neither type of material is acceptable on Wikipedia. I nominated it for deletion because the person did not appear, IMHO, to be notable. Please read WP:GNG to see why. Incidentally all of this was included in the edit summaries and in the nomination - not sure why I need to repeat my views here. Perhaps you could explain.  Velella  Velella Talk   15:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sorry this is my first article I have made before and did not realise your comments were in the history of the page. I have removed the gushing self-promotional information and provided more reliable refs. By the way, maybe you should not be so harsh with your constructive criticism. Thanks.Noahtyrell (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. The edit history shows quite clearly that I removed the gushing puffery but it was you that has persistently added very poorly sourced content. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a venue for promotion of minor celebrities or any other trivial content. There are very clear policies and guidelines to try and ensure that all articles meet a minimum quality threshold. As a contributor, you should be equally mindful of these policies yet, despite very clear advice, you choose to ignore them. If the resulting criticism is harsh, then that is, perhaps, only to be expected.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. I only said sorry that I did not see your comments in the edit history, as this is the FIRST article I have ever created and didn't know that your comments were in the Edit history (I'm not sure if you read my reply incorrectly or you are just a really rude person?). I realise that the information you removed needed to be removed, it's gone. I understand what Wikipedia is, and once again I'm sorry that I didn't see your comments and when I did see them, I understood what you were saying and I edited the page to better suit the policies. Noahtyrell (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IWA page for deletion

Hello Velella,

I'm afraid we didn't see your comment to Angharad Dalton (she is no longer with the IWA) on our edit page until today; and we are working on the suggested edits.

Regards, IWA Team 16:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Page Deleted

Greetings, I am new here and I just created my first Artist article by the name 'KING ND'. As it's my first try I am still unaware of a lot of things and still learning how this works. I still don't understand why my article was deleted. I had still not finished adding all the content as i was still learning the ways. I've spent many hours on adding whatever I could at that moment. You go ahead and delete my article when i'm still trying to figure it out. I would humbly request you to restore my page and guide me on how to not get it deleted in the future. Thank You Kingnd (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/RAPPERKINGND

External links: http://desihiphop.com/exclusive-interview-king-nd-chennaimixtape/501721

http://desihiphop.com/confession-portrays-betrayal-realization-king-nd/121650

iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/king-nd/id1057518233 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingnd (talk • contribs) 09:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every article on Wikipedia must meet the notability standard. This article does not. The only sources are YouTube, an unreliable blog type source reporting an interview an an itunes sales site. None of these get close to notability. Writing an artice about yourself is also strongly discouraged.  Velella  Velella Talk   11:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RWM EXHIBITION

hi, you have placed a deletion tab on this page i was editing:

Recycling_and_Waste_Management_Exhibition

The information was inaccurate previously so i was correcting it? Why have you placed the deletion template on there? Rachelseditingaccount (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are many issues here. First; it is clear from your edits that you have a very close connection with the subject but have not declared any conflict of interest on your user page.
Second; the fact that one editor stops editing when a conflict of interest flag is raised and another starts immediately afterwards raises serious issues of whether there is editing by one person from multiple accounts. This is not permitted.
Third; the edits that you made, which are significant, are not sourced to independent and reliable sources as required by Wikipedia.
Fourth the whole article is not supported by reliable and independent sources which attest to the notability of the subject. This is the basis for the nomination for deletion. Despite the deletion notice, no editor has provided any such sources and I have not been able to find such sources.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RTV Ora News

I have improved the RTV Ora News article. Please could you re-evaluate it. Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I always prefer to let other editors re-evaluate updated articles. It avoids accusations of vendetta or preferential treatment. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   17:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sugr

Check out the page history before it's erased. I went to add that it was also a copyvio and practically made a fool out of myself with Twinkle. Home Lander (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts?

Multiple accounts?
I have only one account, please and thanks. I'm not sure about your accusation. Mariaabalu (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you would have no problems if I open an investigation ?  Velella  Velella Talk   17:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/K3vinvmp.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Edits
What I was referring to was what you deleted - "Pamela is an architect whose work has evolved beyond physical structures to digital infrastructure. She creates spaces for humanity (physical and virtual) that stimulates and empowers individuals to live their best life." with the link http://www.contractdesign.com/practice/Designer-You-Should-Know-Pamela-Abalu-40992.shtml as not YouTube. I'm just a new user learning, not trying to spite anyone. All info I'm getting is from those sources. Would appreciate feedback on how to make it less promotional as you're more experienced on that. Mariaabalu (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:24:14, 11 July 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Craig Shaw and Evgeniya Shaw


Hello I am the author of the Craig Shaw (Dancer page). I act as Craig and Evgeniya's PA. I mistakenly logged in as them instead of me (Chrisshaw14) and as a result it looks like they produced it. I also created a page under my own login called Professional Showdance World Dance Champions and linked it to existing World Dance Champion pages. Would it be better to delete their page and account and just use mine, then I can set up the page properly. Thanks for the assistance Craig Shaw and Evgeniya Shaw (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisshaw14 There are so many issues here It is difficult to know where to begin. First you very clearly have a conflict of interest here. There is no declaration of any conflict of interest on your user page. Second the user name User:Craig Shaw and Evgeniya Shaw is not an acceptable username and it appears to represent more than one person. Third, the page isn't anybody's , it belongs to Wikipedia and anyone can edit it. In reality , my comment about conflict of interest applies equally strongly whichever account was used to write the original article. My candid advice would be that Craig Shaw shows no evidence whatsoever of being notable and I would abandon all work on the article and wait till someone totally independent notices him and writes about him in a reliable source and then another non-involved person might think that he was worth a Wikipedia entry. I also have severe doubts about the notability of Professional Showdance World Champions which may be tagged for deletion soon unless there is a very marked improvement to referencing - in this case referencing for the notability of such a list and for the individuals - all the current references lack any independence.  Velella  Velella Talk   12:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carol brown

How can i post about carol with out you thinking im plagerising? Beachball7 (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can't because it is a copyright violation which is wholly unacceptable on Wikipedia. It is also a misuse of a user page. If you want to write an article about Carol Brown please go to WP:Article wizard and start there. Please note that all the words and phrases used must be your own and not copied from elsewhere and all significant facts and statements need to be supported by reliable and independent sources. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   23:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Velella, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

Rationalism (architecture)

Hi Velella, why did You undo the reference to this german dissertation? It refers clearly to the italian architectural rationalism.--Filadelfia (talk) 09:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Lakes

I removed the content because it was uncited and there is no evidence of notability by Local Authority area, as per core policies on verifiability and notability. I have dug out some sources on the biggest lakes, and other notable lakes, which I can add into the article in place. Eldumpo (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement to establish notability for the way the list is ordered. Geographical physical features are generally regarded as having inherent notability provided that there is evidence thst they exist. In this case the Ordance survey series of maps provides this. The geographical location establishes their existence withina Local Authority boundary. Having a bald list without any ordering greatly diminishes the encyclopaedic worth of the article. This way of odering was agreed by consensus in the very early days of the article and no good reason has been provided to change it.  Velella  Velella Talk   20:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have you a link to any discussion / guideline that states that there is no requirement to establish notability for the way of ordering. I don't agree that all lakes are automatically notable. There are a number of lakes that are red links and there is no indication that some of them are notable in the context of discussions about Welsh lakes. There's a category for people to see all Welsh lakes. The previous consensus (or just what has been done before) is hardly a strong reason to keep things as they are, changes can be made on Wikipedia. Eldumpo (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-billed duck

Hi, I've just tried to split the species Spot-billed duck into two articles: Indian spot-billed duck and Eastern spot-billed duck. I was doing this because the major authorities have split the spot-billed duck into two species. (IOC, H&M4, HBW alive and Clements). Specifically the Birds Project on English Wikipedia follows the IOC which you can access here. On English wikipedia we create an article for each species of bird.

I duplicated the article Spot-billed duck and then set about changing the text to reflect the different species but moments later - as I was doing this - you reverted by changes. Perhaps I should have created new articles in a sand-box - but I can quickly make major changes to the text. Aa77zz (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Smith AfD

Hey there,

When you struck the duplicate at WP:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Smith, did you mean to remove two other !votes as well? Triptothecottage (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Triptothecottage (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was not my intention. Thanks for letting me know - hopefully now all fixed up as it should be. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   22:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Velella, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

  • Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
  • Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

A7 on Roger Crowley

I wanted to let you know that I've removed your A7 tag on Roger Crowley. The article cites several books he's written and links to a New York Times review of one of those books. That might be enough to survive at AfD. It is certainly far outside the A7 criteria. agtx 19:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Although I cannot see either reference as they sit behind either a paywall or won't let me see them because I block all advertisements, it is still patently clear that what both sources are discussing is one of his books and not Mr Crowley himself. There is no hint of notability for the subject of this article and I doubt there is in either of the sources quoted. Whether somebody is significant simply because they have written a book, that has been reviewed, I also doubt. If it is not significantly improved , I may well take it to AfD.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is more than reasonable to take the article to AfD, where I'm not entirely sure how I'd vote (although I'm not going to nominate). That aside, I'm a little concerned about your interpretation of the A7 criteria. A7 means no credible claim of significance. To say there's no hint of notability for someone who's got book reviews in the NY Times and the Guardian doesn't really add up. We're not talking about some hack who's self-published a book on Amazon. Those sources are a credible claim that the person could be notable, and that we need to take a closer look. That's enough to merit a discussion on the topic, which means that summary deletion via A7 isn't right. agtx 04:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Velella, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

  • On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
  • Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Apology

Hello,

I sincerely want to apologize for my article. I am very new to this and still trying to get a handle on this. I was thinking that I did not successfully create my article because it was gone. Now that I have seen my messages I understand that I am not doing this correctly. Thank you for your patience and understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meriamboggs (talk • contribs) 00:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I hope you stay around and enjoy Wikipedia. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   08:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automat - United Kingdom edit

Dear Valella, Thank you reviewing the edit on the automat page. I changed the text few times to make it more neutral with no adversising.Could you please tell me what part would need changing to have the section added to the page? I need to say that I am not sure what part cause problem.

Everything I wrote are neutral facts and even if some part could sound promotional - it only describe the technology advancement of the new automats compared to the old one. I believe this is a main differentiator - and the future of this technology- that readers should know about.

More details would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your help. Regards,

Dom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domdd (talk • contribs) 16:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. As this is about article content, I will copy this over to the article talk page and reply in more detail there. This gives other editors a chance to contribute and reach consensus. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   20:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My bet

Hello. I have placed a £500 bet on Marine Le Pen winning the election which lost because she lost. I am sure that the election was rigged in favour of Macron and wish to push my far-right agenda here on Wikipedia. Deal? Wollygogg (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No deal. Not now, not ever. This is Wikipedia and not your personal play ground.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing deleting notice

hi, u just place a tag of deletion on a page i created, kinda strange but anyway i intend on fixing it and meeting the right requirement. was hoping u give me a few hours while i fix it ..Desktop88 (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that is because I do not believe that the article relates to a significant or notable subject. I will revisit the article in due course.  Velella  Velella Talk   11:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyocera Document Solutions

Hello Velella,

I would be very interested to know what exact part of the KYOCERA Document Solutions Draft infringes the copyright of the Bloomberg article (listed as a reference), so that it may be edited. All texts on that page have been written – not copied – using cited information. It seems odd to me to lock the article claiming there's been a copyright infringement of an article that has been cited as a source with no material directly copied from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafterman100 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a read of the Bloomberg article where the verbatim text from your draft can be found.  Velella  Velella Talk   11:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The text is not verbatim, only the information has been used and cited. I understand the policy and ethics of Wikipedia, but this is simply not a case of plagiarism and this particular case comes across as a vague misapplication of a good policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafterman100 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Velella, I would really like to make the article for Kyocera Document Soltutions publishable. What do I need to do to achieve this? I've got an article saved on my computer with better external sources and no copyright issues. Thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafterman100 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest posting it as a draft article (replacing the existing draft) and submit it for review. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   12:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Dunn (actress)

Hi Velella Just to let you know that I am not the person who created the article Laura Dunn (actress). Therefore, according to the rule explained in the notice, I have the right to remove the tag if I can improve the article. This is exactly what I did. I hope this clarifie my position. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatoudiomande123 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. I have re-tagged it particularly since I have a very low confidence that two editors are involved here and even lower confidence that either of your doppelgänger are new to Wikipedia.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
:: I am afraid that I do not understand what you are saying. Would you rephrase it again.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatoudiomande123 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Q&P Award for you

Q and P Award
Quality and Patience Award
----

Thank you for being a tireless
and fearless contributor to the
Wikipedia project, and for being
one whose many edits have added
significantly to the overall
quality of the project. May your
long patience with this brave and
bold project reflect back
brightly upon you.

Awarded
 October 12, 2017
 by the

Wikipedia Editors Kindness Project















Something so many of us around here deserve.
Cheers,
Scott P. (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That is very kind and much appreciated.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikitext" vs: "Wiki-markup" wordusage-frequency

Hi Velela,

I noticed your recent redirecting users away from the term "Wikitext," and towards the term "Wiki-markup." There is a discussion about a comparison of the word-usage-frequency of the two terms at: the Wiki-markup talk page going on that I thought you might be interested in.

Thanks,

Scott P. (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was making no judgment here. I simply noted that two articles covered the same ground and that the article Wikitext had been moved to Wiki markup in 2009. However since that date the redirect had been re-filled with some text, but it did not represent as comprehensive a view as the original article. We therefore had two dissimilar but duplicate articles which contravened Wikipedia's policy, so I followed the rules and reverted the redirect back to a redirect leaving the more comprehensive article as the definitive article (in sensu lato). What its name should be, is, I am sure, worthy of debate, but I have no preference. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   19:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bai Jiguan tea

Hi Velella,

I could use some help with understanding a bit more what was problematic about the edits made on the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bai_Jiguan_tea.

Here is what was submitted:

Bai Ji Guan (simplified Chinese: 白鸡冠; traditional Chinese: 白雞冠; pinyin: bái jīguān; Wade–Giles: pai2 chi1-kuan1; pronounced [pǎi tɕí.kwán]) is a Si Da Ming Cong (which loosely translates as "four big famous bushes") and is more lightly oxidized than many of its oolong counterparts of the Wu Yi Mountain Region. It is the shape and color that give this tea its namesake "White Rooster Crest". Unlike most Wuyi teas, the leaves of this tea possess a yellowish blush that resembles the crown of an old rooster rather than green or brown coloring.

Legend has it that the name of this tea (White Cockscomb/White Rooster Crest) was given by a monk in memorial of a courageous rooster that sacrificed his life while protecting his baby from an eagle. Touched by the display of courage and love, the monk buried the rooster and from that spot, the Bai Ji Guan tea bush grew. Another legend recounts a less colorful story whereby an old regal rooster met his end somewhere near a place called Hui Yuan Rock. The locals buried the rooster under a tea bush nearby out of reverence for the animal, and when the next spring came, they discovered the tea bush was now blooming with bright yellow growth.

This tea is known for its low yield, something which has contributed to its rarity, along with its small leaves and large space requirement. Consequently, the annual production of this tea is quite low and not readily available on the market. The picking standard for this tea is 1 young leaf and two full leaves.

The flavor is also quite distinct from the other Wuyi Oolongs, which tend to be very similar as a group. Part of this, it has been speculated, can be attributed to rumors that it is an albino cultivar. Still, just like most Wuyi oolongs, it sits in the highly oxidized end of the oolong tea spectrum, but in the lower range of oxidization for a Wuyi tea, which tend to be 60-75% oxidized.

end of submittal----

The previous information is not verified, so I'm not sure that I understand why the information added would be removed. Also, if I compare this submittal with other similar pages (Da Hong Pao, for example), similar external links are provided.

Thanks for your help.

posted by User:7Cups (talk, contributions)


Before you arrived at the article, 7Cups, it was very poor. It appeared at first glance to derive from a single source, but on inspection only a small part of it turns out to come from that source. For all we know, the rest could have been mere invention. Unverifiable information/misinformation is widespread in Wikipedia; we try to reduce it, not add to it. Your largest addition to the article was mostly unsourced, thereby worsening the problem. However, one part of it is sourced to this page of a Tucson retailer of tea. A retailer is a dubious source at best. (The retailer's name is Seven Cups; yours is 7Cups: please read this.) Please digest Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, and feel free to respond at Talk:Bai Jiguan tea. -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I fully endorse Hoary's comments above and would perhaps have added that burying the link to a website of a commercial organisation as a reference in a block of text is, perhaps, the most common form of linkspam on Wikipedia. It is intended to give the impression of improving the article whilst actually promoting a company or the company's website rankings. It is very strongly deprecated.  Velella  Velella Talk   08:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't claim to speak for Velella here, but I'd add that I'm willing to believe that (i) you really know what you're talking about, and (ii) you haven't provided references for it because you honestly didn't believe they were necessary, because you didn't have them easily at hand, or some other reason that's understandable (if not adequate). If you'd care to change your username and edit while citing reliable, disinterested sources for what you say, you'd be very welcome to improve Wikipedia's coverage of tea. (Incidentally, the sources do not have to be in English.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LT2

Excuse me, but i was adding that part in for Lazer Team 2. The teaser for the film was out and i want to make a page of it when the teaser is out. Crazybob2014 (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once an AfD tag is on the page it may not be removed until the AfD is resolved. It has not been resolved so the AfD tag stays.  Velella  Velella Talk   16:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of notability for "The Society for Political Methodology"

The Society of Political Methodology has been around for over 20 years, originating from a small conference in 1983. The society's official journal, Political Analysis, is one of the top academic journals in political science. The current president of the society asked me to create a wiki page for the society. Would you please consider the followings as evidences of the notability of the society:

  • The society's webpage [[2]]
  • The impact factor of academic journeys in Sociology and Political Science [[3]], where Political Analysis is currently ranked #13 internationally.

Note: The wiki page is now at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Society_for_Political_Methodology HJ08003 (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:GNG for more insights. All significant text in articles must be supported by independent and reliable sources. This article has not a single external source. Had it remained in mainspace it could well have been speedily deleted as a non-notable organisation. Moving it draft enabled you and others to work on to try and demonstrate notability.  Velella  Velella Talk   20:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Velella, The Society for Political Methodology is a section of American Political Science Association [[4]]. If you compare the the following two websites, you will find out that the information are consistent. Would you please consider that as an external source for evidence of notability? Thanks.

Also American Political Science Association [[5]] already has a page at wikipedia, and Political Methodology is a listed section there. So, how about we add a link in the American Political Science Association's wiki page that points to the Society for Political Methodology wiki page? And you remove the "Draft" and reinstate the page as I added the other day. Would that work out?

Please. just please do read WP:GNG before commenting further. Notability has a specific meaning here which may be different from the common understanding of the word. What is required is independent and reliable sources used as inline references to demonstrate notability as Wikipedia defines it. At present the article has none, it has only affiliated sources. We can see that it publishes a Journal etc - but that isn't independent. What we need is the New York Times talking about it or CNN as examples. In mainspace I would nominate it for deletion. So please read the guidance and improve the article. Thank you  Velella  Velella Talk   21:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Velella, How about I add a link for "10. Political Methodology" in the APSA Organized Sections of the current wiki page of American Political Science Association [[6]], and put our page as the secondary page of American Political Science Association ? I also added the Scimago Journal & Country Rank, i.e. SJR ranking, of the journal - Political Analysis [[7]]. SJR ranking is widely used and acknowledged in academia. Thanks.

I agree that it is more likely to survive as a paragraph in American Political Science Association although I am astounded that this article too is completely unreferenced. I would strongly urge that effort is put into providing reliable and independent references to the main article, add the text of the current draft as an additional paragraph, remove duplicate text and request deletion on the redundant draft. That way the principal article would be secured, the content from the draft incorporated and risk of deletion avoided.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Velella, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

  • Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mont Rose College (MRC), London (United Kingdom)

I contributed a source of information from an external genuine link and the information about affiliation of college with the University is provided on Uni's website. Can you please advise what is the best way to reference it then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by I.kotia (talk • contribs) 09:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It needs reliable and truly independent sources. I.e sources that are not in any way connected to the College. The Guardian or the BBC would be good, equally The Spectator or The Economist or even New Scientist but absolutely not a regurgitation of the Colleges own web-site or press release.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oooooooooooh...

RE: Ajay Kannoujiya, I see that the Indian National Congress isn't... the "national congress of India". Good catch on that one. GMGtalk 19:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For Britain

Hello Velella,

May I ask for a fuller explanation as to you reversed my proposed addition to the above article?

Your reason summary is that Youtube is not an "acceptable or reliable" source. However Youtube is permitted as a source by Wikipedia though caution is suggested concerning copyright and veracity. In the circumstances, since the video shows Anne Marie Waters, an easily recognisable public figure making a speech explaining her purpose in launching For Britain, in front of banners for that party, the possibility of the video showing anything other than the For Britain launch seems fanciful.

In any event the same video is produced on the For Britain Party's Facebook page which is linked to by the For Britain Party Twitter feed. If the issue were reliability would my summary of its contents be acceptable to you if I added that as a second source?

In my opinion the current For Britain entry does no credit to Wikipedia, containing four pejoritive characterisations of the party that its supporters would dispute but no statement emanating from the party itself of what it stands for. The cumulative effect of the article as it is currently formulated is that it appears condemnatory of the party rather than informative about it. Paulddaellis (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a page link if you wish to have a reply. Thanks  Velella  Velella Talk   21:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Velella, I don't think that's an ideal way to answer a newbie asking for an explanation in good faith. The article title is short and simple; you could have managed to get to it without the link, and Paulddaellis probably had trouble understanding what you meant. They seem to have given up now. Bishonen | talk 18:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I understand your concern, and I may be wrong, but my belief was that sufficient material might be presented over time to justify an SPI. If I lack patience with potential socks, then I guess that I am probably not the only one around here. Ho hum  Velella  Velella Talk   20:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anglesey page

Hello, I was just curious as to why you thought my contributions to Anglesey RE: Pop Culture were irrelevant.

Thanks XmanABQ

Having a mention in an album by a less well known Swiss band is hardly notable. Anglesey features a great deal in the songs and poems of Wales and probably ,many other countries. Descendants from Anglesey travelled the world and wrote of their homeland. If we were to include even those more notable songs and poems, the article would be overwhelmed. I note that I was not the only editor to consider the addition trivial  Velella  Velella Talk   21:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Thanks for telling me my source was incorrect on this occasion. 

GC 5 (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment pond

Thank you for your patient support on subject talk page. I fear my exasperation was showing. I would value any suggestions you might offer for improving comprehension of conversational English by Germans whose understanding seems limited to technical terminology. I was under the misapprehension English was a Germanic language, but we Yanks are notoriously insensitive to cultural differences. Thewellman (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an area where I have no significant expertise. I suspect all nationalities have their own idiosyncrasies partly driven by the conventions of their own language and partly by societal conventions. My interactions with others brought up in Germany has generally been very positive. Precision and accuracy appear to be valued which I too value as a scientist but I do acknowledge that sometimes this can impede ready comprehension buy the general reader. I value disambiguation pages and the flexibility they give to readers to select the correct article and which, perhaps, allows more precision in the article, but I would also acknowledge that the presentation of information is never going to be perfect because of the range of readers that use Wikipedia.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. Thank you. Thewellman (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

report of possible unlawful and even criminal reputation-management by Velella

A new Wikipedia article on the ancient institution of Insurance Syndicates was proposed in a sandbox.

This is a very very dry subject: but a subject which is very inconvenient for some parties.

Wikipedia administrator Velella summarily and without any opportunity to discuss the matter nullified the article without explanation.

This event and certain other things about Wikipedia administrator Velella suggest that Velella may be a professional reputation manager who was engaged and then paid to suppress a new article about Insurance Syndicates.

Thus - a full report of this matter the possible criminal implications (under US Law) will be discussed at:

http://kleptoselling.com/criminal_velella/

2604:2000:A017:9A00:8E1:10CD:5919:BE35 (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the IP for making legal threats. Don't know if it's related to Hank Voltaire, the author of the draft in question. Favonian (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks - interesting that I have been promoted to administrator !  Velella  Velella Talk   22:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD of Paine Schwartz Partners

Greetings Velella! I'm genuinely curious and was hoping you could spare a moment to answer a couple of questions in regards to the above mentioned deletion proposal. I was alerted to the AfD over at the WP Private Equity Task Force page, and as a result I did my best to find more RS with some success (detailed over on the AfD, I won't bore you here).

My questions are as follows:

(1) Is there any particular reason to jump to AfD versus the various other 'needs help' type tags? Private Equity entries have notoriously been a pain to demonstrate notability at first creation, and tags have been helpful in getting more eyes on the material. I'm thinking maybe it's due to the history of the article and various puff you've removed over time?
(2) I'm interested in adding this page to the rescue list - I'd never seen it used before and am intrigued. Since I've already done the legwork and uncovered a good number of sources, perhaps another editor with time can help improve the entry before deletion is finalized - but it honestly feels a bit like WP:CANVAS to go that route and the last thing I want to do is disrupt. Happy to hear any thoughts on the matter before I proceed.

Thank you! Pegnawl (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it is an article that appears to have attracted a fair amount of WP:COI editing to try and make the company seem more important than it is. I see no significance here, and I personally believe that companies that pay for "improvements" to their Wikipedia presence or encourage their employees or agents to do the same, have little worth in an encyclopaedia.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the prompt response! Do you think a COI tag or a discussion on the Talk page prior to an AfD would have helped matters any? As I continue to worth through the Private Equity Taskforce entries, I imagine this problem will continually arise and I'd like to get a better sense of what mechanisms are used, when, and why. Pegnawl (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bear bile

The claim you restored, that bile products have not been proven effective, is demonstrably false. The "Bile products" section informs us that the bile contains Ursodeoxycholic acid. The Ursodeoxycholic acid page tells us all the things that it's good for. How is it acceptable to restore demonstrably false claims?

Further, the first of those two citations is a very bad source. It provides no sources of its own and is the site supporting a documentary. In these ways, it can't be considered unbiased. The second isn't much better. It's nominally a scientific blog but the articles use very unscientific wording and the first page of google results contains suggestions that cast doubt on the quality of its work. At least this article does provide attributions however it doesn't make any claims about the effectiveness of bile products.

Simply put, the claim should not be in this article, nor should the first citation. I'm skeptical of the value of the second citation but it could be used to support the $2bn claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratsta (talk • contribs) 15:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial wastewater treatment

Greetings,

I understand that you wish to restore the "Water treatment" section in Industrial wastewater treatment. I concede that something about this topic is appropriate in the industrial wastewater article, however the way it is currently written is confusing. Some distinctions/clarifications are needed. The first sentence, "Many industries have a need to treat water to obtain very high quality water for demanding purposes such as environmental discharge compliance", is applicable to perhaps thousands of industrial facilities worldwide, from many different manufacturing & commercial sectors. The preceding subsections of the article describe particular industrial sectors (i.e. manufacturing, power generation) as pollutant sources. The "water treatment" process should be defined/introduced, and then distiguished from the wastewater treatment processes in the subesequent sections. Some text from the existing Water treatment article would be appropriate here. Such clarifications would be especially helpful to those readers that are unfamiliar with the differences between water treatment, wastewater treatment, and similar terminology.

Thank you for your efforts and best wishes. Moreau1 (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I understand the distinctions you make so I will have a go at a re-write and provide some references. Just for information I have worked as the regulator of major industries and in one steel plant, the production of high purity water through ion exchange produced an effluent with such high calcium ion concentrations that when it was discharged to sea through a 1 metre diameter outfall, the outfall pipe itself became accreted with deposited calcium salts until eventually the lumen totally blocked and a new, very expensive , pipeline had to be laid. Now, regrettably, all of that, including the detail, is covered by commercial confidentiality and regulatory confidentiality and is not published anywhere. Me knowing something isn't going to get anywhere on Wikipedia, but I am struggling to find good refs because much of this material is "under the counter". Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   00:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

marisha ray

i'm with you on deleting her page. only reason anyone even knows her name is because she has been in mercer's pocket since before they all started playing dnd together.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Velella&oldid=811309142"