User talk:Velella

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This talk page contents prior to January 2016 have been archived. Please feel free to start new discussions below.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


Skinny Fabulous[edit]

Added reliable source's to Skinny Fabulous article — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStevEO722 (talkcontribs) 01:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Houston Heights Woman's Club[edit]

Dear Mr. Velella, I am extremely sorry if the page I created was not sufficient, however I am a freshman in High school and this is a very important project that I have worked very hard on and spent a large amount of time on. Please don't try and delete my page. I will take any suggestions on how to make my sources more useful and valid and I will also and the tag letting people know that I am a student working on the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellietycer (talkcontribs) 04:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Please first read the notability guideline to understand what it needs to establish notability for an article. You might also want to consider using the new article wizard to help you create an article in draft space where it is less vulnerable to deletion - I am sure you can find your way to the wizard. Please don't be put off editing because some of your work has been nominated for detion - you probably have about a week to improve it and save it. I apologise, but I have no idea what age a "freshman" in "high school" is so it is difficult to give more advice appropriate to your age. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   06:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse revert[edit]

Hi. Can you explain this revert? I'm not sure what I did wrong! Cordless Larry (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Many apologies. Very much not intended. I am editing using a tablet, very many miles from home and using a stylus on a small screen is proving taxing to old eyes. When mistakes do occur, I try to fix them immediately but this one I missed. I am not sure that I can restore the content as other discussions have moved on but I would be happy to try if that would be useful. Regards.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
No worries, Velella. I've re-edited the page. Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm Md Hashim azmi shaikh. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Pritam Kumar Jha, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Hashim 07:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I have simply tagged it as unreferenced: I see no evidence that you have made any edits. Neverthless I have Prodded it as an unreferenced BLP.  Velella  Velella Talk   09:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement[edit]

Hi, I just saw that you're interested in making the Wikimedia movement more sustainable. I created an essay regarding the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement on Meta. I'd love to hear your ideas and maybe even have your support! Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Sarmad Sindhi[edit]

You seem to have overlooked the "Living" aspect of WP:BLPPROD. Regards, Bazj (talk) 08:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, very true. I was trying to avoid nominating it for a speedy deletion just in case some refs came along. I should have gone with a PROD as you have done. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   08:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Robert Joshua Danao[edit]

I noticed you removed the CSD from the article because there is a claim of notability. If this was tagged as a A7 this would be logical, but the article was tagged as a G11. Your logic does not apply. reddogsix (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[edit]

update content[edit]

Hi Velella,

I am trying to update content for fruit shoot based on its website sources so as to be reliable. How can I do that please? Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMfruitshoot (talkcontribs) 08:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The promotional website of a product is nearly always the worst place to find information. Wikipedia requires robust independent sources for its information. You replaced moderately good encyclopaedic text with almost meaningless marketing hype. That is not what Wikipedia is about. Please have a look at Wikipedia's notability guidelines for more help. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   09:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Stick to what you know[edit]

How can indepth marketing information be "way,way too marketing orientated" on the Marketing Mix page??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audrey094 (talkcontribs) 09:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Simply because this is Wikipedia, an online encyclopaedia which requires that all pages are written in a neutral encyclopaedic way. Therefore pages about advertising should not contain advertisements, and pages on marketing should not contain marketing hype. The page might well describe that fact that marketing often uses hyperbole and may be economical with the truth, but the way it is written should still be encyclopaedic and supported with robust, independent references that provide the required notability.  Velella  Velella Talk   09:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

About Alan Rickman's page[edit]

Dear Velella,

I apologise with utmost sincerity for the unintended vandalism I did on Alan Rickman's page. It was definitely not my intention to vandalise his page, I only wanted to add to it. Ever since he died, I wanted to find out about his funeral, as I felt sad having to say goodbye to one of my favourite actors. Unfortunately, there were no online sources available, so I had to ask some fans instead. After finding out he was apparently cremated (with his ashes retained by his wife), I assumed this was fact as I was even sent a picture of the invite, which I have attached. I knew that asking fans is an unreliable source, but I had to do it because there was no information about his funeral online. I only wanted to add to his page, not vandalise it. I noticed that Simple English Wikipedia has a category for people who were cremated, but none on the main Wikipedia, so I had to create it. Unfortunately, I have no experience with HTML and had to create the category by adding it onto his page, then creating the category page itself. I added a few other famous cremated people into it (e.g. Marc Bolan) to add to it. I am deeply sorry for any trouble I may have caused and I regret my actions. I promise to be a better Wikipedian in the future and use more reliable sources.

Yours truly,

Lembowman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lembowman (talkcontribs) 21:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

People who were cremated[edit]

Dear Velella,

I just want you to know that "People who were cremated" is now an official Wikipedia category and I have linked it up with the original Simple English version. I created the page and published it so it now an official category that can be attached to the articles of notable people who were cremated.

Yours truly,


Lembowman (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Suspension bridge[edit]

Hello, I noticed you removed my addition of suspension and cable bridges to Croatian inventions. I would just like to note that Fausto Vernazio (Faust Vrancic), a Croatian polymath, then part of the Venetian Republic, is credited for designing the first suspension bridge. Please allow me to keep this change on Croatian inventions Spacetime123 (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Ashley Chinner[edit]

Gimme a break, I wrote a little paragraph about my father for him when he comes home, can you delete the article in a day? Payton Chinner (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I's sorry but Wikipedia is not part of social media and nor is it a web-host. Only articles about notable people are retained here and Wikipedia uses its own definition of notability. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   18:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

new article[edit]

Hello! sir this is Kiran, just i created one article, actually its my first article with proper reliable sources. If u agree with it. then i proceed. Plz Suggest me what i have to do. Is it correct way what i have created article? Kiran Kirak (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what your message means but I suspect that it derives from my tagging Duniya Rashmi for speedy deletion. This very short article has no references and nothing to suggest any notability. Reading this may help. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   12:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
im reqeusting that you please leave my article alone Dennis Adonis (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I believe that I have made the only edit that is required. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   19:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Crusade against Emily Ratajkowski images[edit]

What is your crusade against Emily Ratajkowski images that depict content better than present and or absent images in many articles?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you in doubt about the licensing of the images. It seems you removed every last one of the placements regardless of their usefulness.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Because it is a form of link spamming.  Velella  Velella Talk   07:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
As I am quite sure you are aware, it is not link spamming to add images/videos that depict the prose content in ways that are superior to the preexisting image content. In most articles, the images/videos that I added depicted the content in superior ways to the preexisting content. With these edits you seem to be trying to extend WP:COI editor policy to a well intended editor who has come across great media content and is attempting to improve individual articles while improving the interconnectedness of WP, which is a desirable feature. Keep in mind that the first two sentences at WP:MOSLINK read "Linking through hyperlinks is an important feature of Wikipedia. Internal links are used to bind the project together into an interconnected whole." My objective of adding the professional quality media content was to improve the visual elements of each article while improving the interconnectedness of Ratajkowski to various articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
No I am quite sure that it is link spamming - all to promote a particular model and a particular magazine photo-shoot. The videos of of very poor quality and do nothing to add to the encyclopaedic quality of the articles. Moreover, many (most, all?) the additions are demeaning to women where there is no justification for the use of such imagery. Wikipedia is not censored, but equally Wikipedia articles are balanced and fair and do not go out of their way to demean or belittle any ethnic group, religious interest , or sexual orientation. Your additions are odious in the context in which they have been used.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with promoting a particular model or magazine photo shoot. It is uncommon for a professional photo shoot to have a behind the scenes production that is availed in creative commons licensing. Thus, we have a lot of photo and video imagery of a particular shoot that we might not otherwise have available for use on WP. Some of the depictions are topless or nude. This is a touchy issue. However, to some it is artistic. I understand that we have to be careful how we present topics on WP. I don't look at File:Emily Ratajkowski with party balloons for 2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot tight.png and see a topless woman. There are plenty of ways to see boobs on the internet that are not covered up. I see an image of a subject in use by a notable person. Thus, I see a priority depiction of the subject.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonu Lal (actress)[edit]

Would you have any objections if I add a +1 to your afd? Sidra Noor (actress) is essentially in the same boat as Sonu Lal, and it seems a waste to create a whole new afd when one that hits the essential notes is already running for a similar article. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem. I am all for making these processes simpler ! Velella  Velella Talk   07:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Dunellen Red Devils[edit]

My page for the Dunellen Red Devils should have not been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thagreatbaldino (talkcontribs) 14:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. There was no evidence of notability, there was no evidence that the team played in a national league or any other form of notability.  Velella  Velella Talk   15:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


Hi. Thank you for patrolling new pages. Please remember to inform the creator when tagging a page for deletion, this will give them time to address the issue or raise an objection. Using an appropriate script will do this automatically. Since 2012 all new pages should be patrolled using WP:Page curation although for isolated pages, the Twinkle script will also automatically inform the user. For more information please see WP:NPP or ask me on my talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of any omissions on that front and apologize if so. Could you point me to the relevant page so that I can work out what want wrong please. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   08:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, it looks as though Twinkle is mis-behaving. I will try and re-boot it. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   08:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
No, it looks as though Twinkle is behaving well. Review of my history doesn't immediately flag up any Twinkle failures. Can you point me to the problem please ? Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   12:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


Hi, So the SaltCON (Convention) Page was deleted. It is simular in construction as other pages, such as

what am I missing? Where can I get help?


Several things probably. First life isn't fair. Second, the argument that there are other similar aticles on Wikipedia does not justify another unsatisfactory article - have a look at this for another view. The real answer is that it failed to meet the notability criteria required of Wikipedia articles. I can't see the article any more - I am not an admin, so I can't comment in any detail, but I formed the view that it wasn't notable and the deleting admin appears to have agreed with that judgement. As regards help, it is always much better to create an article in Draft using the article wizard. This gives you time to knock the article into shape and the process includes a review by an experienced editor before the article is published. It also protects the draft article from deletion (unless it is offensive or a copyright infringement etc). Hope that this helps. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   22:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi vellela still waiting for your reply on my article. Slicksosa thanks a lot. I also want to restart an article that was previously deleted due to lack of references and relative importance. Thank you Slicksosa (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

CSD tagging[edit]

Hi Velella. Why did you tag Thiel Audio with a {{db-corp}} as you did in this diff? Sam Sailor Talk! 17:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Because it did not seem to me to be a notable company based on the information and references provided.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry to say that this is a repeated mistake of yours. Could you please have a read of what several people have politely written here above? Sam Sailor Talk! 20:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016[edit]

Information icon Hello Velella. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and content (CSD A3) moments after they are created, as you did at Stefun Jahangir Carzon. It is also suggested that pages that might meet CSD A7 criteria not be tagged for deletion immediately after they are created. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

You mistake how I work. I have performed searches on the individual and can find nothing that remotely suggests at notability. An article creator who can fix up an infobox but not produce a single reference flags up concerns in my eyes. As a photographer, his Instagram account lends very little credibility to his claims and has only 208 followers. Is this the mark of a notable photographer? The inability of google to produce a single valid reference only amplifies that concern. In addition we have the article wizard to help create articles in a more protected environment.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Which is beside the point. You didn't even give the author a chance. Just because you didn't find anything doesn't necessarily mean there isn't anything. He may simply not have finished it yet. And the existence of AfC isn't an excuse to tag articles that are created by other means for deletion mere minutes after creation. Adam9007 (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Velella, I second Adam9007 here, you have been advised multiple times to stop your hasty tagging, and you demonstrate over and over again that you are A7-tagging in breach of policy. Please take a break. This is not the end of the world, but you need to stop, listen, and change bad habit patterns. Regards, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Wild Bunch Paintball Team[edit]

Hello, there seems to be some confusion on a page that I created. After the page had been placed into AfD and a discussion developed, you posted in favor of speedy deletion, in violation of the process rules. I did not want to remove your comments without talking to you first. Please remove your PROD support endorsement from the page listing as soon as possible. Thank you. FeelTheBernBaby (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Removed as requested  Velella  Velella Talk   13:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Help for new editor dealing with potential copyright issues?[edit]

Hi Velella. I am a very new editor. I found your username while reading through listings of possible copyright problems in order to figure out how to ask for help from the folks that process potential copyright problems. As I couldn't figure out where to post my own question on that page, and only got so far on the Teahouse, I thought I might ask you. I'd like the support of an experienced editor to help me navigate the potentially murky waters of whether it is a actually a problem, what category of problem, and if necessary and how to get it listed on Copyright Problems Page.

Is this something you are available to discuss with me?

Best wishes and thanks too, AD64 (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC) 6

Not a problem as long as is it in the next 24 hours - after that I shall be without an internet connection for about two weeks.  Velella  Velella Talk  
After I posted details of my concern to you here, I was going through the rest of my notifications, and it appears that someone has stepped in at the Teahouse to take care of things. Thus, I no longer need your support. I have deleted my original message to clear up your talk space. Please have a great two weeks away. I'm happy for your offer of support. Best, AD64 (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

AfD for Rene Heger[edit]

I have opened a deletion discussion for the article Rene Heger. You may want to participate. ubiquity (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleted page for endsight[edit]

Hi Verella,

My article "Endsight" was deleted from articles for deletion process. I did not edit the article for 5 months and it was deleted. I would love to retrieve the information that I had on the article. I do not wish to post as of right now. Please let me know if you can help me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egarcia2057 (talkcontribs) 23:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Self-written living person articles[edit]

Hi Velella, your tag of vandalism is a surprise to me and I have contested it. This is an important category, in my view, and others agree. I look forward to seeing discussion on the question. Best, Guest11111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guest11111 (talkcontribs) 05:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

your welcome.  Velella  Velella Talk   08:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


Hey, this might be interesting to you. --Jayron32 14:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Thanks for reviewing White Nationalist and Supremacist Support for Donald Trump in 2016, Velella.

Unfortunately MrX has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

I'm unreviewing this so that other page patrollers can review it. It may have been created by a sock puppet and the article needs to be edited to comply with WP:BLP.

To reply, leave a comment on MrX's talk page.


Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Delilah_Alvares, CYA there. --OGfromtheGut (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Certainly did  Velella  Velella Talk   17:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools and the discussions relevant to it. Educational institutions are specifically excluded from the A7 guideline, because regardless of notability they are handled in a particular way. For high schools and colleges,they are considered for convenience as if hey are notable and kept. This is one half of a purely empirical compromise intended to lessen the burden of AfD discussions on them. The other half off the compromise is that primary and junior high schools are not kept unless they actually do clearly meet the standards for notability , which is quite rare. Instead they are either merged to a section on education for the locality, or listed on s list or sometimes a combination article for the schools in a particular area. This is one of the purposes of lists: to deal with things that ought to be mentioned but are not sufficiently notable for a separate article. It's specifically mentioned as a technique in Deletion policy. (their inclusion on a list for the locality is not unique--we handle churches and cultural institutions the same way in most cases)

The compromise has been pretty stable since about 2008. There are occasional challenges, and you are welcome to discuss it again, but before you do, ask yourself if you really want to participate in the 50,000 or so afds that would result, because if it fails, not only every high school, but every elementary school, will be defended there, as used to be the case. DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. That was a discussion that I hadn't seen. I have no intention of rocking the boat despite the illogicality of the compromise outcome. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   16:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Just had a chance to read through the guidance which is not quite as clear cut as it might have been. Nevertheless I am not inclined to set out upon a mass deletion of non-notable school names from lists of British unitary authorities (tempting though it may be). However, it does beg the question, that without notability, how do we judge what is a hoax and what is not? In years past in Britain, the relevant Education Authority web-site could provide an authoritative list. Now with academies and private schools which sometimes outnumber LA schools, there is no definitive list and no ready means of checking. An own web-site cited as a source only means that somebody has learnt to make a web-site and not that there is actually a school. Any thoughts ?  Velella  Velella Talk   17:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Kaan Akalın and Arar Mı[edit]

Hello currently creating content for these pages but they are valuable enough to be in wikipedia. It's a debut single and currently trending alot in Turkey. Creating multilingual pages now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayipadam (talkcontribs) 22:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Currently fixed the uncited information as I was adding text already. All sources are refered right now. Album and artist page linked.Kayipadam (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Hello, I'd kindly request to learn if there are any issues regarding to the new article. As I am in a gmt +3 time zone will be leaving in half an hour. If there is an issue about the page (which I guess there isnt any as I fixed all citation and reference errors) I'd be happy to learn them so I can fix and then leave. Thanks in advance. Kayipadam (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The issue is not about citations, it is about notability.Please read WP:GNG and specifically WP:MUSIC for help. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   23:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I read those articles. And did confirm that the criteria was met. As there are more than 4 major newspaper news. Almost a million viewed youtube music video. Two album that the artist appeared on. And one album compilation which is already in wikipedia TR which contains the artists name in it. You reviewed the page when there were not enough content as I was saving and editing at the same time. Please re-review the article so it can be accepted. Thanks in advance. Ps: all links between sarticles and translations from Turkish are made. Kayipadam (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Direct Action Everywhere[edit]

Aloha Velella,

I was editing the Direct Action Everywhere wiki page and was about to add my sources when you kept removing my edits. :) Ok, fair enough, but I am new to the process and simply need some guidance, can you help? I need instructions on how to add my edits while inserting references, removing all my edits simply appears rude, but hey, I'm new to this, so will accept the behavior as standard for wiki. A disappointing first experience with wiki edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 808alles (talkcontribs) 22:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

What you were doing was adding contentious material without any sources. You had been actively editing the page for 25 minutes in 14 separate edits without adding a single source. If you add material like this it must be sourced as you go along otherwise it will certainly be deleted. It might seem harsh but without good sources , unscrupulous editor could get away with inserting anything they liked, truths, half-truths and downright lies. I am sure that it wasn't in your mind to inserted untrue material, but what you have been adding seemed certainly one sided and potentially contentious.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what "one sided" means? What was added was factual material and I was ready to add the citations when my edits were removed. I'll redo my work with citations, sections at a time, and a question, what is your capacity at wiki? Are you a proofer or an interested third party watching over edits? Simply curious and thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 808alles (talkcontribs) 23:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I am just an editor, like almost everyone else here. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   23:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Too speedy[edit]

This speedy deletion tag was too speedy. Since the author had only created the article one minute prior to your tagging, you have no way of knowing whether the author intended to flesh out the one-liner with details that would have positively asserted this person's notability. In general, I feel it is best to allow an article to exist for at least 15 minutes prior to speedy deletion tagging, except in cases of attack or copyright violation pages. Tagging faster than that, especially on new authors' articles, can be very bitey. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks WikiDan61 you correctly described the situation. I am new to Wikipedia and was in the process of building the article as it was marked for deletion. As I would seem to be the model of the coveted 'new contributor' I can certainly say from my experience that giving me a bit of time to assemble my article would have made for a warmer welcome. Velella, please consider the regular advice on the talk page above and allow those of us who are new contributors a brief period of time to become familiar with the process. (for instance, I was unaware of the ability to draft an article before posting) , perhaps pointing new contributors to that process would be a more constructive place to being a conversation with a new user than simply making a page for deletion. Makersoftheater (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
No, I am sorry, but if you choose to jump in at the deep end, it is reasonable to assume that you can swim. There are several ways of creating an article safely including the new article wizard , constructing a Draft: article or drafting in your own sandbox. Equally, most editors spend some time familiarising themselves with Wikipedia and its ways of working before starting on a new article. I also believe that I was fully justified in my tagging. I did two separate searches that yielded nothing notable. This is borne out by the article itself which, as it stands, has nothing to demonstrate any notability. Unless there is some substantial improvement I will take it to AfD as I do not believe it merits inclusion in Wikipedia.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Makersoftheater and WikiDan61. There is no rush to delete articles as fast as possible, so there is no reason to rush to tag an article for speedy deletion. Obviously, there are some exceptions, but for content-related problems (rather than attack pages, etc), rushing to delete another editor's article is bitey. Of course there are some processes that the author could have used, but many editors don't know about that. Filling out a redlink article is a pretty simple path to creating an article, so it makes sense that an editor could easily unintentionally bypass that. Regardless, I don't think it's an acceptable justification to immediately tag an article that's likely still a work in progress. If the editor is still actively editing, I prefer to leave it alone until later. Appable (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for tine information and converting the article to a draft. I will continue to work on it there. In my original response to the article being tagged for deletion, I provided a number of examples of other personalities of similar stature that do have similar wikipedia pages. The reason I chose this topic was specifically because it seems the this individual has a similar degree of stature in the industry as a number of other people who have wikipedia pages. I would appreciate any input Velella or others might have on what in this case defines notability. My thought was that the number of awards and nominations and lecturing on the topic at an internationally recognized institution met the threshold of notability. Specifically is the question of notability a problem of citations or is it that you feel that there is not a substantial enough level of achievement in the field.Makersoftheater (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Warren County, New Jersey debacle[edit]

Not sure if you got pinged about this, but I thought you should be aware. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

18:53:01, 30 June 2016 review of submission by[edit]

There seems to be confusion about the references provided as they clearly demonstrate notability. Burgunder has received extensive media recognition in both national and international publications on his accomplishments. Many of the media outlets are independent of the subject, too. Such publications include Running USA, Colorado Runner, ESPN, Pittsburgh City Paper, Pittsburgh Tribune Review, Naples Daily News, Associated Press, Competitor Magazine, CBS The Early Show, (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)and several of others. All of these publications have highlighted Burgunder's accomplishments.

As for notability in terms of athletics, Burgunder was selected to represent the only US men's team to compete in the Greatest Race on Earth and this was covered by the Associated Press. Burgunder is also a multiple record holder in terms of XTERRA trail running, which is the largest organized trail running circuit in the world. Also, Burgunder has garnered several of other impressive accomplishments that make his background unique and notable.

Lastly, Burgunder has received national recognition as a sports business person as he was named one of the rising stars in sports business by the Sports Networker, which is recognized as a national authority for the sports business industry.

Therefore, Burgunder is notable and is worthy of being published on Wikipedia.

I suspect that these arguments would be better put on the talk page of the article so that any reviewing editor may read them. I very rarely return to a draft article that I have reviewed, preferring to let others take an independent view. It is 12 days since I reviewed the draft article and no changes have been made since then and none of my suggestions have been followed up. I understand your points but I don't agree with your conclusion , however I am happy for others to take an independent view.  Velella  Velella Talk   20:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Journal access[edit]

You may be interested in getting free access via WP:LIBRARY. I haven't tried my access yet, and am unsure if I have the relevant journals without much digging. Widefox; talk 22:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


Section WP:ANI#User:Widefox disruption. Sorry I included your name per that editor, so the usual notification here. Widefox; talk 12:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


Hello Vallela - re the edit on microorganism - apologies - I realised my mistake after I had gone out. Cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   22:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


Hi, re this tagging - it's not eligible for WP:CSD#A10, since the article was not recently created - it's existed since 2 July 2006, i.e. ten years ago. But you might have more success if you tag Jamhore, which was created at 08:46, 15 July 2016 - i.e. less than two hours ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes I realised that some time later. The issue was in the spelling of the name of the settlement and it seemed best to keep the correct spelling even if it was a later article. I agree your analysis and have made the incorrectly spelled version into a redirect. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   10:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
What you have now done, in essence, goes against WP:CUTPASTE. Put Jamhaur back how it was, then edit Jamhore to add {{db-move|Jamhaur|(your reason here)}}.
Also, this tagging was also inappropriate, since no part of WP:CSD#T2 applies. Try using {{db-g6|reason=page unambiguously created in the incorrect namespace}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
That does seem unnecessarily complex , especially since I was not the editor who created the 3 new versions of the same article and who also persists in adding copy-vio material, but ( sigh) it is done, but I cannot provide any reassurance that it will stay in this condition for long! Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   10:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


Sorry, but I've declined your speedy on the Ratman thing. There is plenty of stuff on Google (I am not guaranteeing the reliability of any of it, though), so it isn't a case of someone posting misinformation to vandalise Wikipedia. The notability of the piece is another matter. It's got more going for it than the usual 'children murdered in the wood' that haunt the classrooms of the nearby school stuff we get, but it could do with evidence of the murder in the underpass being real OR evidence that it is a wifely believed myth. (I've had two of my own creations repeated to me after quite a few years of having nearly forgotten them. I was rather young at the time, but since that I've been suspicious of many myths and legends...) Peridon (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Sri Lankabhimanya Sir Arthur C. Clarke[edit]

Why was the page speedily deleted? It was not a test page, it was a redirect! --ColouredFrames (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't his name.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC) --ColouredFrames (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the link which is usful and could have been usfully quoted in the edit summary. However Wikipedia does not use honorifics in article titles and only occasionally in redirects in case where the person is commonly known by thier honorific tile such as Lord Lucan.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


Hello [Velella], would you please explain in detail about my vandalism? I don't get it; I didn't even edit any Wikipedia pages!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreatestWikiEditor (talkcontribs) 22:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

How does harassing a well respected editor on their talk page and the refactoring comments on your talk page to change the apparent signatory sound? All of that is vandalism.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the vandalism...[edit]

OK, so I apologize the repeated vandalism. And, I will NOT contribute any sort of edits to Wikipedia from now on. How does this sound? Also, I heard a lot of people saying that you were a professional Wiki editor and scammer. GreatestWikiEditor (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)GreatestWikiEditor

And that was supposed to help your case ??  Velella  Velella Talk   23:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion Inquiry[edit]


I just noticed my page "Buygoodeals" was deleted on 25.07.2016. Since I am new to Wiki, I would like to retrieve the deleted material for future reference and improvement. Could you please let me know how can I get them back? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weibinzha (talkcontribs) 08:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Weibinzha: You asked a very similar question at User talk:Maile66#Deletion Inquiry (informing Maile66). I can view the deleted page Draft:Buygoodeals, and it's clear to me that it was unambiguous advertising or promotion, which is speedy deletable under WP:CSD#G11. Phrases like "Buygoodeals is the greatest platform on which users can find" or "Buygoodeals provides latest information of discounts" go very much against WP:NPOV, and there is not one reference (reliable or otherwise) to support these claims, see WP:V. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of UDR Inc under A7[edit]

Hi there, you put a speedy deletion label on UDR Inc under A7 (not notable).

It's a member of the S&P 500 Index, which means it's one of the 500 largest companies on the NYSE and the NASDAQ.

As I remember it, membership of a major index is one of the criteria for notability, but even disregarding that, it's a pretty major company!

I totally understand that the page is a stub, my intention was to build just enough that it would be valid, and allow it to be subsequently built upon.

Let me know if you think I missed the mark, but otherwise could we avoid trashing it?

Thanks :) Tabel dammit (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of ThisisDA for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ThisisDA is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThisisDA until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. for (;;) (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Chapel cleeve[edit]

I will NOT. I am not censoring it. I am making the article relevant to the reader. YOU STOP editing it AlecCollie (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

You may your editing privileges blocked if you continue. I would strongly urge that you revert your last edit now.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

And what gives you the god given right? Are blocking freedom of speech? I thought wiki was a collaboration but it seems that some people including you and some others have 'authority'. I don't recognise this.

I know the owner and been going to the Manor for 18 years. I know it and grown up with it. There I have more knowledge of what had happened than you do.

Therefore I politely ask you not to edit it again as you do not have the right, nor the knowledge to match mine on this specific matter. AlecCollie (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I also don't recognise your permission to 'block' either. The wiki rules prevent it. You are not the police, you are in interfering busy-body with no authority on this subject.

The rule you are breaking -

Conflicts and involvement Edit Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. It is acceptable for an administrator to block someone who has been engaging in clear-cut vandalism in that administrator's userspace. AlecCollie (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not about who you are or what you know, it is about removal of content from an article which is supported by references and the addition of material not supported by references. I know nothing about Chapel Cleeve Manor other than what I have read in the article, but I do know a little about how Wikipedia works. With that knowledge I can advise you that if you persist in the way you are editing at present, a report will be made about edit warring and there is a high probability that you may be blocked from further editing. It would be much, much better to discuss your concerns on the article talk page, explain what you would like to do and why you think it important and proceed in a collaborative way with other editors. Your current approach is like a bull in a china shop and the edits are contrary to Wikipedia policy and guidance. Please take a step back and review more constructive options. Nobody wants to see an editor get blocked.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
... and, for the record, I am not an administrator nor ever have been.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't know how to do a talk page. It is far too confusing.

I am like a bull in a China shop because people are reverting changes that I have made without explanation except it breaks 'wikipedia' rules. If you create the talk page as to why you think you are right then we can debate it I presume with other people. Just changing stuff back is frankly rude. AlecCollie (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The relevant talk page is at Talk:Chapel Cleeve Manor . I would advise reverting your last edit before the discussion and then you will be in a much stronger position to argue for change. Defending unpopular changes that have already been reverted many times is a very weak negotiating position. Since there is already a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring it might also help defend yourself against being blocked from editing. However , it is, as always, your call. Velella  Velella Talk   22:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Guochuan Lai[edit]

No, your restoration of information to the page has messed up the editing that was underway to add references to the page, much appreciated if you could rectify your mistake. BaggieBaggie (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Really ? I suspect not. It would be much more helpful if you could provide edit summaries to keep other editors aware of your intentions.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

requesting a to cancel a speedy deletion request[edit]

Dear Velella, good day to you.

I have put a number of references to support the article. I am in the process of updating further. please asdvise what is needed for this deletion to be cancelled. (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wackener (talkcontribs) 09:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

So, you copy somebody else's Wikipedia page, replace that group name with your group name and expect it to stick. I really don't think so  Velella  Velella Talk   12:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Probably another new user who didn't see the big red block of text at the top of the page creation window that suggest that they create a new article in draft space. Perhaps the solution is to move the article in question to this user's draft space and let them work on it there. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I would be content if it went off to Draft provided that when it is submitted for review it isn't still a more-or-less copy of another article.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
You do understand that you are expoiting the word COPY right? The only thing borrowed from another page, is a rough template and is strictly for presentational purposes. There is not a single word copied. In this respect I kindly ask you. If this article is built up again from scratch, but with the same text, does this solve the problem for you? Thank you. Wackener (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Meredith Clements[edit]

Dear Velella,

I wanted to make my first wiki contribution today and so I chose a small, renowned entrepreneur to begin an article on. Unsure as to why you've flagged it for deletion as I added credible references to my article. Thank you, Anna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajones78 (talkcontribs) 23:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

All Wikipedia articles need to be about notable subjects. Notability is defined here and this article does not meet the notability criteria. I also did some searching and could find nothing that got anywhere close to establishing notability for Meredith. Hence the deletion notice. Hope that this helps.  Velella  Velella Talk   23:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


says "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from an article, do not replace it". If you still thing that Kudu (restaurant) should be deleted then you need to start a discussion at WP:AFD, where a consensus can be reached. (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry - I had thought it was an AfD template - should have looked closer.  Velella  Velella Talk   16:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


Hi Velella,

First off, thank you very much for reaching out to help me edit the page Sinfire. I am looking to change the page name to Sinfire Cinnamon Whisky. However, the page Sinfire Cinnamon Whisky already exists. I thought it would be okay to copy the entire page and paste it into Sinfire Cinnamon Whisky, and then redirect the Sinfire page to Sinfire Cinnamon Whisky. Would you have any recommendations on how to do this?

Also, I got a message that i'm not allowed to deleted things from the page if they are sourced and then a message that some of the sources might not be reliable. Any recommendations on how to get rid of these messages? The sources used all back up true facts

Cheers and again, thank you for your time. Mikegabrielli (talk)Mikegabrielli —Preceding undated comment added 14:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

There are several issues here. It appears that the company is now called Sinfire so that is the correct title for the article. They make Sinfire cinnamon whisky which is mentioned in the text and as a single product doesn't warrant its own article. So far so good, and with a little editing of the first sentence to properly reflect the company name and its products the intro would be fine. However..... there remain two much more significant issues. You have been removing content dealing with a legal dispute. This text is supported by reliable sources and, in general, such text is not deleted unless it is irrelevant, or has undue weight in the article. Your removals have been without any explanations either on the talk page or in the edit summary - for a change like that there should be commentary in both places. The most significant issue however is the notability of the subject as a whole. I.e whether Sinfire is a notable company. At present it looks as though it isn't. There are no reliable independent sources that discuss Sinfire. Sure, it has won awards, but then there are very few alcoholic drinks that haven't. It has been involved in litigation but not to such an extent that makes it notable. At present the article is at high risk of being nominated for deletion since it doesn't meet Wikipedias definition of notability. Please look at WP:GNG for more background on this. I hope that this explains the three separate and different issues with the article. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   16:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


Thank you for your response! I was in the wrong for not discussing the removal of content. I am glad you added it back since I was unaware of how to do so. Also, I added some more sources which I hope will help make the case for Sinfire to be a notable page. If you do not feel this way after reviewing the edits, I would greatly appreciate some specific examples of the areas that show that it doesn't warrant a page. Again, thank you for your time and I look forward to rectifying these issues! Mikegabrielli (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Mikegabrielli

Speedy of Jerry Toupin[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that I removed the speedy tag on Jerry Toupin. The article seemed to assert enough significance to merit an AFD or PROD to me (though I'd probably support deletion in its current state, and it definitely meets WP:BLPPROD currently.) Anyway, just wanted to give you a heads up! TonyBallioni (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Request: Untag Deletion of Legend Cinema[edit]

I agree with your tag, as this is too soon for an article to be published, yet this production house has their audio launch in a day (2nd September). Am an avid lover of Telugu Cinema, and I request you to consider not deleting this article as this will have more references and lot more movies will be produced under same production house. NutJob12 (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

That only confirms in my mind that it is way too early for an article here. Let Legend Cinema get going and see what reliable references surface over the next few years. Now is not the moment. (this reply also posted on the article talk page)  Velella  Velella Talk   16:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Eric Metcalfe[edit]

Hello, I'm the assistant for the artist Eric Metcalfe. I have been working with him on his Wikipedia Page so that the content is accurate. I finished the edits and you deleted the page and I'm unsure why as I'm getting the most accurate information directly from Eric Metcalfe himself. It would be appreciated if you did not delete the content again. Thank you. CSBJ301010wapa (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

There are several issues here. Firstly, the article before you started changing it had text supported by references. Your edits removed that referenced text. The text you replaced it with had no references. Secondly the first paragraph was a direct copy of text found on many web-sites so presumably was taken from a press release but nevertheless a copyright violation. Wikipedia does not accept any copyright violations unless you have specifically licensed your content for reuse in Wikipedia. Thirdly, the vast tracts of text you added were not in any sense encyclopaedic and was more like a CV. Please look at the articles of other artists for guidance here. Fourthly, it was clear from the edits that whoever was editing had a conflict of interest. Your edit here confirms that. Please read the guidance on conflict of interest carefully. This requires that you declare your conflict of interest on your user page and that you refrain from directly editing the article where you have such a conflict. I hope that this helps to explain the recent edit history.  Velella  Velella Talk   08:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I am writing once more to you as your deleted my last comments on your page for some unknown reason. Perhaps you feel that you don't need to respond to my inquiry? Regardless, I work for the artist Eric Metcalfe and you deleted all of the correct additional reference material for the artist that he and I added to his own Wikipedia page. The information that we added is directly from the artist himself. Are you familiar with his practise? If you prefer, you can make suggestions but I would recommend that you not delete my message again as it's definitely not in line with bettering anyone's knowledge of the Wikipedia platform. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSBJ301010wapa (talkcontribs) 16:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
As noted on your talk page, I have already replied here.  Velella  Velella Talk &nbsp 16:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the username policy[edit]

Hi I'm Shalin and I'm working for Creately. our page was PROD and yesterday I request to undelete and in the morning I stared editing for the proposed changes with the account name cinergix, I didn't know about the username policy and I'm looking for a way to fix this. Can you guide me regarding this without tagging it for deletion. Thanks --Shalinsiriwardhana (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Shalin. I assume that you and the account Cinergix are one and the same. There are strong sanctions against people using two accounts under certain circumstances but it appears that you have simply logged in under a new name. That is fine but could you also please log back in as Cinergix and record that the account was operated by an employee of Cinergix and is now inactive because of username issues. It would have been easier to have simply changed your name, but what is done is done. Can you also put a notice on your user page noting that you are an employee of Cinergix and that you have a conflict of interest in editing any pages related to Cinergix . Please see WP:COI for more guidance.
I have tagged the article for deletion since I do not believe that it is notable. Please read WP:GNG for further guidance on notability. It is also worth reading WP:CORPDEPTH which relates to companies and organisations but which has some useful pointers for software. I hope that this helps.  Velella  Velella Talk   15:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. That account is blocked now (cinergix). I'm using a account called shalinrc for my future editing. I have read and understood the username policy and went through few guides as well.

Bob Schaffer Page[edit]

Dear Mr. Vellela- I am a student at Liberty University Online, and consequently, Liberty Common School often popped up on my browser. In doing research of the school and its principal (Bob Schaffer), I noticed his wikipedia page was seriously outdated. Additionally, I noticed that a portion of it presented assertions and opinions as facts, arguably a coatrack article, was an attack article and cited a major city newspaper that has since been demonstrably disproven. In an attempt to provide neutrality and update information, my edits were rejected. I have made some sourcing changes that are superficial yet will satisfy wiki policy. However, in the Attempt to Link Schaffer to Abramoff section, I have cited a blog that might not meet the wiki definition of reliable source. I implore you to juxtapose the journalistic integrity of and the related links with the (lack thereof) journalistic integrity of the Denver Post citation. The former delves into much deeper depths, interviews more sources, and leaves no stone unturned in the reporting that was done so thoroughly over a 10-part series. The so-called acceptable source does not come near the journalism quality in the source linked by me. Additionally, my edits serve to provide balance and neutrality, which I know Wikipedia strives for. I will be making the edits again, I hope you take a close look at the sources and see the benefit the edits serve to Wikipedia readers. Regards, JacksonSarahWY (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The use of a blog instead of a newspaper report is unlikely to be regarded as replacing a poor source with a better one. At present it looks as though all your edits are attempting to whitewash Bob Scaffer and remove any criticisms. In addition none of your lengthy additions have been supported by the references you quoted. Worse than this , some of the text has been a direct copyright violation. This has happened twice and if it continues you run the real risk of being blocked from editing.
Please stand back, forget where you go to school and try and see this article from a non partisan point of view. Better would be to try and improve the article of non-Christian Democratic senator in a balanced way with appropriate references. This may help in understanding the view-point of non-involved, non American readers of Wikipedia articles. At present it looks as if you are just too close to the subject to be impartial. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   20:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

__ Your accusations of my being close to the source are wholly unfounded. I told you how I came onto this page as it is entirely unrelated to anything other than the subject is principal of a school that has part of the same name of my school. Again, I did research on schools in Fort Collins and see that this wikipedia page is seriously outdated and biased. There is absolutely zero attempt to whitewash, rather, provide the counter to the false allegations done by a disproven source. I wish you would take the time to compare the quality of the reporting, rather than just read the name of the media outlet doing the reporting. Flip this around, and it looks like you are trying to whitewash a neutral point of view in favor of a biased attack article by a disproves source. I have spent a lot of time trying to improve this wikipedia site, I should be thanked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacksonSarahWY (talkcontribs) 21:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Please also read WP:AGF and rest assured that I have read all the references provided. How else could I have identified the copyright violations ?  Velella  Velella Talk   21:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Vandalisms on Bridge[edit]

'Contributor/editor' has inflicted a series of spurious edits on bridge. There may be as many as ten going back to Revision as of 2016-09-19T15:17:52 by (Talk) 2016-09-19T15:17:52. Peter Horn User talk 15:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Looks like school kids in Tampa Florida. The IP has been blocked and all vandalism reverted. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   15:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Good. I always maintained and always will maintain that unregistered users should not be allowed to edit. Peter Horn User talk 16:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Boca Raton FC[edit]

Mr Velella,

I dont undersatand what you mean with "no relevance". Here in US , soccer is not like in Europe and Latin America and a new club that accomplish what BRFC is doing is great relance for the soccer community.

Please see the media coverage about the team, not only here but around the world.

Jamaica, Germany, Italy, Russia, Ukraine, Brasil and USA

Hope this can meet you search for "relevance"

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas Heizer (talkcontribs) 21:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add references to the article and not here. Nobody will read my talk page when considering the deletion request. I also note that you have a very strong conflict of interest and should not be editing the article.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Boca RAton FC 2[edit]

Hi Mr Velella,

We already tal about the "conflict of interest"last July. I have a disclaimer there. Thank You. I will add the links at the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas Heizer (talkcontribs) 21:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circassians in Iran[edit]

This was never listed and I've deleted it, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KurdoKardir. Doug Weller talk 15:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. There were a few others very suspect quasi AfDs and it looks as though both the socks and the articles have been blocked/ fixed. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   16:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


Could you please leave the Oris Company edits alone? they are not promotional material, I'm just enumerating products like in many other pages best malelo8--Malelo8 (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

No. Your edits are highly promotional and , in general, backed by the company's own web-site. Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion or advertising. Do you have an interest in this company? Are you an employee or an agent asked to improve the web-site ? If so you need to declare your conflict of interest clearly on your user-page. At present this gives the strong impression of paid editing.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm just a watchlover that wants to put the models Oris has. Why don't you delete the rest of the part with the old collections? Please explain Malelo8 (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Curious that you have edited no other watch makes? Like all editors here, I make judgements about what is and what is not notable and what is and what is not promotional. I will continue to do so.  Velella  Velella Talk   15:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Velella. It was an exercise for a Digital Marketing course on the unit about co-creation and content democracy: how users can create such a wonderful thing as Wikipedia, but in the unit they didn't take you into account. I edited Oris because we had to choose an entry, I have one watch, I like the brand and I saw that they didn't have much info here. Maybe you work for TAG Heuer! who knows... Kind regards (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Such comments are regarded very severely on Wikipedia and can result in your IP address being blocked from editing. An immediate redaction would be an indication that no serious allegation was intended.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


Problems with Condensing Boiler Technology - the end game? This is to be found at

Hello Velella. Thank you for your review of this article with suggestion for deletion by yourself. I am new to WP, this is my first article, and after telling some others about my contribution, they wanted to have their say and defend the page of their own volition. Particularly so on the delete/keep page listing. How is an entry made on that page? if you can give a clear and concise summary that would be welcome. Thanks. Diogenes Loquitur (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Lalithaa Jewellery[edit]

Hi Velella, Have you noticed the articles you nominate for deletion (your nomination) was recreated with different name (Lalithaa jewellery as Lalithaa Jewellery Mart and KiranKumar as M Kiran Kumar). I mistakenly tagged Lalithaa Jewellery Mart for G4 because I thought it was deleted after a deletion discussion but then I found the deletion result was G11. I want to know if you can please have a look at Lalithaa Jewellery Mart and let me know if this is the same version of the one you took it to AfD because I personally feel it still don't meet GNG. I have also reported 2 more users as sock of User:Sivaakumarr at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sivaakumarr. GSS (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you were absolutely right. There was a deletion discussion, it happened that the evidence was so overwhelming that it was deleted as a G11 during the process, but there is clear evidence of discussion and outcome. I have re-tagged it as G4 and we will see what happens. Thanks also for the link. It would have taken me for ever to find the nomination! Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   19:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
☺👍 Perfect. GSS (talk) 06:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion was declined so I have posted it to AfD here  Velella  Velella Talk   19:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Aluminum can[edit]

I reverted the change of Aluminum to Aluminium in Aluminum can, this has been the source of previous edit conflicts. For the moment, consider WP:ENGVAR and that WP:ALUM applies to only articles on the chemistry of Aluminum. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Problems with Condensing Boiler Technology - the End Game?[edit]

Thank you for your comments.

I have tried to add even a mere reference to the above article on the Condensing Boiler page (as you suggested) but Andy Dingly takes it down immediately. My main article is well researched, is not 'new research or soapboxing', the content has a strong following (ten years +) in both the UK news (BBC included) and the responsible newpapers (eg. The Guardian) - at least 7 total references are given over to that following. The Campaign itself seeks to introduce minimum criteria of Sustainability Credentials of all Key Appliances. Minimising fuel poverty, and eliminating early deaths from fuel poverty (potentially 5,000 per annum) that these appliances create out of 30,000 deaths in the UK in total - thats official, has to be socially fought. The environment and sustainability rules created will then hopefully apply across the board to many different devices. Please help Diogenes Loquitur (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diogenes Loquitur (talkcontribs)

The very start of the article condemns it as an encyclopaedic article. "The start of a campaign to learn lessons from this technology ". Wikipedia articles are never part of a campaign.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


WikiDefender Barnstar.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
On behalf of others I hereby award you this barnstar for helping to remove fraudulent tat. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Much appreciated, although I can only guess at what you had in mind!  Velella  Velella Talk   19:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


This page should not be speedy deleted because...

This page should not be speedily deleted because jaamsim is one of the more active open source discrete event simulation packages in existence and has seen increasing amounts of use over the past few years. A recent article published in the Journal of Simulation noted that it had significant advantages over other previously developed open source software, I thought this was worth adding a page for it. I'm continuing to put an article together with further details, and would appreciate the time to flesh out the entry further before deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Java3dguy (talkcontribs) 23:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not the right place to appeal against a speedy deletion. Please post your reasons on the article talk page. Thank you.  Velella  Velella Talk   23:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Dhananjay Acharya[edit]

Hello Velella

I just wonder you have nominated Dhananjay Acharya page for speedy deletion. He is a notable person. about his work published in many indian news papers and telecasted in Public tv Channel Karnataka. He did many things. wikipedia is for representation of uniqueness, celebrity, achievers, and notable persons. Whoever created page if person is a kind have proof of his work, then his work should be in wikipedia. wikipedia is a public property.and please note that before putting speedy deletion please check his work not author who created a page.

even many private companies in wikipedia PayTm. nothing they did, they just earning money. this guy invented many this for public. Please remove speedy deletion by considering proof of his work.,27,2016,Bangalore#page/15/2

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chetanayelluru (talkcontribs) 05:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not the right place to appeal against a speedy deletion. Please post your reasons on the article talk page. Thank you.  Velella  Velella Talk   09:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The Garv award pages[edit]

Okay saw that you put some under prod (like Garv Television Award for Most Stylish Actress), there seems to be tons of these (check Garv Television Award for Votice Choice Continuing TV Show for example), and look at the template as well as the category-not sure how notable these are. Wgolf (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   08:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
welcome-there are some more that you might need to look at also. Wgolf (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, aren't there just! I thought the template included most, but how wrong could I be! Ho hum, off to work we go.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Looks like most of them will be deleted soon-you might want to ask to get the template/category deleted soon also. Wgolf (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC).
AfD now and TfD now both closed .  Velella  Velella Talk   09:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

University of Manchester structure[edit]


As you may be aware the university was recently restructured from 4 faculties to 3. The former faculty of Medicine contained schools such as dentistry and pharmacy. However, the new faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health has a different structure, its largest divisions are termed 'schools', these being: School of Biological Sciences, School of Medicine and School of Health. As far as I'm aware the old schools that were within medicine are now downgraded to avoid the logical inconsistency of having "schools within schools". There may be some legacy webpages still calling the former schools 'schools'. Teaching and research are now more separated, there being 8 teaching 'subject areas' (e.g. pharmacy) and 9 'research 'domains' (e.g. 'cancer'). I work at the university and this is the situation as I understand it. Urselius (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg Thanks for visiting my page and raising a genuine doubt. However I have given clarification on my talk page. Hope you will get satisfied. Yavarai (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Bradford Stephenson[edit]

Thanks for digging further.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem. It just looked "wrong". That probably is neither an accepted nor defined reason in Wikipedia, but I suspect many more experienced editors would recognise the feeling! Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   20:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Sewage farm - septic drain field merger[edit]

No need to apologize - I regard your comments as an entirely welcome confirmation of my opinion. Thank you. I'll look through my collection of obsolete textbooks to see if I can find reference citations to improve the sewage farm article. Thewellman (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Moov, Inc[edit]

Hello Velella, Thank you for your feedback about the conflict of interest in us updating and fixing our page. I can certainly understand that desire for keeping conflict of interest clear. I have reverted all changes that I made to the previous version and added the appropriate tags for review and discussion. Please take a few minutes and let me know how we can best improve this article without directly editing it and kindly resolve the deletion request, I believe after having the changes I made reverted and our effort to only improve the content of the page (including the removal of advert content) the request is unjustified. Matt - Moov, Inc. (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jesse B.J. McLaughlin[edit]

Hello Velella. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jesse B.J. McLaughlin, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. -- GB fan 11:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a vice chair (not Chair) of a council representing 10,000 people. That is like the vice Chair of Bangor (Gwynedd) City council. To continue the analogy, even the chair of that council is very unlikely to be notable and neither is the chair of the County Council which is one tier higher and represents 200,000 people. I am really unsure where this reasonable assertion of notability is believed to lie. But, ho hum, I am not an admin with admins ex-ray vision!  Velella  Velella Talk   13:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


The two are obviously socks, both created within one minute of each other and both primarily vandalizing LGBT stereotypes. They seem to have quieted down for now, so I'm not going to bother starting an SPI at the moment. Dan D. Ric (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I saw them both and thought perhaps meat rather than sock because of the interlacing of time, but equally blockable if they resume. I will keep an eye out just in case. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   14:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Avon River (Christchurch) edits[edit]

Hi Velella, thank you for your recent feedback on my edits of this page, apologies as I was not intending to make it promotional. I will review guidelines closely should I revisit this page in future! Kind regards, Stevejackson987 (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I did leave one mention of the company in for the Gondola page, but Wikipedia is very much against any suggestion of advertising. More importantly, thanks for the Gondola page - it should have been there years ago - particularly as I can see the top of it from my window across the harbour!.  Velella  Velella Talk   23:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hunter Valley Grammar School edits[edit]

I'd just like to apologise for the edits I made on the Hunter Valley Grammar School page. I did not realise I violated the website's guidelines, by going to extreme lengths at making the page promotional. Would you be able to revert the changes you made to the template on the rightside of the page, as it is not promotional, and merely reflects the new logo, and more information about the school. If possible, could you check out Newcastle Grammar School's page, to see if that is promotional as well. Warm regards, Hunter Valley Grammar School —Preceding undated comment added 22:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome to make non controversial changes yourself. I only rowed back all the edits because there was so much unacceptable stuff. Incremental changes for accuracy are fine. Potentially contentious material should always be supported by references from an independent and reliable source. Please read WP:GNG for more information. I have had a quick look at Newcastle Grammar School as requested and removed one very obvious promotional sentence. I will have a look again over the next few days. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   22:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help[edit]

Hi Velella,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


Dear Velella You are engaged on a Edit War althoug I cited the sources. Can you let me knwo on waht ground you have undone my edits?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taesulkim (talkcontribs) 00:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Please see both edit summaries and the note on your own talk page.  Velella  Velella Talk   00:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Velella. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


Do you have a feeling that this user could be a banned user's WP:SOCK? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It is certainly possible but behaviourally, it isn't a problem (at present) but for a new user there is a deal of experience of Wikipedia new pages patrolling. I just think a name change is in order. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   20:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter[edit]

Hello Velella,
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
Breaking the back of the backlog
We now have 348 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.
Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .

DYK for Michael Stevens (educator)[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 4 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Michael Stevens (educator), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Michael Stevens, creator and host of Vsauce, uploaded his first YouTube videos under the username "pooplicker888"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Stevens (educator). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Michael Stevens (educator)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected[edit]

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected[edit]

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter #2[edit]

Hello Velella,
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need


Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .

Re: Lady Mary Joy 3[edit]

Please check the article MV Lady Mary Joy 3 with added words and news journals. Thanks! Bumbl_loid 09:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

My post to east grand forks wiki[edit]

The edit i had made to east grand forks was factual as i am a 4 year graduate of the school the listings of the post were referenced by exprience of not only myself but multiple of my peers id respect for you to not remove the factual reference of the experince inside of the school as you have no local reference to the current state of the schools inside or experince for yourself i will be removing the controversial part of my peers being on narcotics or other forgain drugs but im not going to back down on the factual ongoings within those school walls thank you have a nice day~ V3ct0ry (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Sigh...... All wikipedia content should be able to be traced back to reliable independent sources. Where there is any doubt, these sources are quoted. I regret that your opinion does not fit the bill. Please read WP:POV before re-submitting.Thanks  Velella  Velella Talk   09:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witness[edit]

Is what i added wasnt neutral, why is everything on that page describing the witnesses as some cult? L3g3nd27 (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

To repeat what is written immediately above your post.....
Sigh...... All wikipedia content should be able to be traced back to reliable independent sources. Where there is any doubt, these sources are quoted. I regret that your opinion does not fit the bill. Please read WP:POV before re-submitting. Thanks  Velella  Velella Talk   09:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2[edit]

Hello Velella,
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
A HUGE backlog

We now have 348 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.


This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

  1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
  2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
  3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election[edit]

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Beenish Raja Reply Comment[edit]

Hi, I was in the middle of curating Beenish Raja when you PROD-tagged it. I've since copyedited it for promotional material and removed the PROD tag. Thanks! DrStrauss talk 10:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


Dear Velella, thank you for the editing effort. The page was created mainly because of a missing link in the Urey prize wiki page, and a recent nomination to the PECASE award (Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers). I will start adding summaries to every change I do, sorry for the omission, I am new to this. In the last change, I removed all references to press releases (following your recommendation), and only kept news articles and journal articles to substantiate the page. Could you please see if what can be done? Remove more text? Remove it all together? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetsrcool (talkcontribs) 03:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Going Back (Buddy Guy & Junior Wells album)[edit]

Dear Mr. Velella! I made an article Going Back (Buddy Guy & Junior Wells album), but for the first time I mistakenly simply titled as Buddy Guy & Junior Wells. When I was ended with that article, I noticed my mistake, so I made a new article, now I titled correctly "Going Back (Buddy Guy & Junior Wells album)", but yes, I copied the text from the previous article. So I think Going Back (Buddy Guy & Junior Wells album) is a correct article, and I wrote a new and correct text for the article Buddy Guy & Junior Wells, which I'd like to develop it in the future. Thank you very much for your understanding! Buddyhooker (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Your article contains no references and is therefore scheduled for deletion. There are already good length articles on both the individuals and I would suggest incorporating any additional material in either one of those articles. Velella  Velella Talk   21:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


Please do not PROD articles like Nepal Loktantrik Primary School. Please do the redirect yourself remember to add the {{R from School}} template which automatically adds information and populates the related category. Please read the WP:NPP section again concerning schools and keep up the good work!. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)



Please do not PROD Primary School articles. Please do the redirect yourself remember to add the {{R from School}} template which automatically adds information and populates the related category. Please read the WP:NPP section again concerning schools and keep up the good work!. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. Late at night it is easy (or lazy) to loose track of the appropriate options ,and we also have a bush fire ranging near us here on the Banks peninsula which may have distracted my full attention. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   22:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Some baklava for you![edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG I'm from the country of Baklava (In our country it calls Pakhlava :) MrKerimov (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Water Framework Directive[edit]

Hi Velella,

Thank you for the recent notification regarding my edit on the Water Framework Directive. I am not writing to dispute the revert. However, I think it is in good practice to provide a friendly clarification of why I made the edit.

Firstly, it was a minor edit, easy to revert. It was simply a link to another article that I felt was relevant, and I also took into consideration the fact that this article links to only two other articles.

Having read the article on the Water Framework Directive, I felt that it would be useful to have it linked to the Environmental Racism in Europe page, especially because many of the issues on said page are closely related to access to clean water and polluted waterways or groundwater. Further to this, the article references the Aarhus Convention.

I understand if editors feel that this article should be strictly environmental in focus. However, from my perspective, environmental issues are closely linked to social issues. Environmental racism is a subject where the social interacts with the ecological. So I felt it was constructive.

In any case, I won't involve myself any further in this--I think this is best left to the other contributors to decide what is best for this article. I just wanted to explain that this edit was made with the intention of being constructive.

Thanks, Sturgeontransformer (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I will re-examine the issue to check my judgment. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   20:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
And thanks for your understanding! If you ever have any concerns about my practice of adding links, please feel free to let me know! I don't always get things right. For example, I recently had links reverted when I had linked to both the environmental racism and it's European page--it was determined that only one link was needed. I generally try to be as specific as possible, but, as described above, some articles have multi-disciplinary subject matter, so I'm not always 100% sure when to link or not to link. While I have reviewed the guidelines for good measure, I always appreciate specific feedback, and am more than happy to do things differently if asked. Like everyone, I'm always learning!
Very best,
Sturgeontransformer (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections[edit]

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yow i added reliable souraes tp the Skinny Fabulous article — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStevEO722 (talkcontribs) 01:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Eagle & Hawk[edit]

No worries, the article really was pretty futzing awful and might technically have been speediable as blatant advertising. I've done some repair work on it now, however. It's still not as substantive as I imagine it could become — I'd imagine they get quite a lot more coverage in the midsized Canadian Prairies markets, like Moose Jaw and Brandon and Thompson and Prince Albert, whose newspapers aren't in ProQuest's Canadian Newsstand database, and I had a lot of problems actually sourcing all the lineup changes (including conflicting claims about when Troy Westwood left the band...and yes, I do mean the football player) — but I've done what I can with the sources I have available to me. Bearcat (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3[edit]

Hello Velella,
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 348 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)