User:Velella/Archives/Archive 13

Query and workaround re your advice.

Dear Velella, Thank you for the helpful comments. Could you clarify for me the following?: I understand your point about overbalancing. However, it was my intention to also increase the length of the article itself which does not currently draw out the principle areas of distinct focus in this man's work. However, in the absence of that as yet, I could greatly reduce the length of the bibliography by simply, as you indicate, confining book listings to those that are primary indicative works. The existing bibliography I found here is very uneven and gives no dates or publisher etc for several titles and excludes significant titles. Can I then give a link to a complete bibliography on an external site? Is that allowable? (It was not my intention to make an act of promotion hence I made no qualitative comments in my bibliographic text. I merely assumed interested readers wanting to find their own entry points into the individuals work, nor am I promoting his work (I am a rare bookseller) as there is no market for such economic writing except in very rare instances of long dead writers and anyway I have no stock to sell!) I am certainly interested in Harrison's work but I would not be able to write a bibliography if I were not. Most contributions to Wikipedia must presuppose interest to make the effort. However, it is not commercial. You say I should quote a source. For a bibliography the only verifiable source is an actual copy of the book. The only other source would be a link to an existing bibliography on another site, itself compiled from inspection of actual copies. But there is no bibliography for this interesting writer. So what kind of source, in this case would fulfill your intention? Many thanks Good Pharisee (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I have already read your response on your own talk page and on the talk page of JamesBWatson. I only respond on an original thread which in this case is your talk-page. Raising an issue multiple time in Wikipedia is frowned on as forum shopping . I had thought that I had made my views quite clear in my original response, but if any other point comes to mind . I will reply on your talk page.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

thank you for your feedback

Hello. I am new to the wikipedia community and appreciate your feedback. I an myself a physician and want to contribute/add to pages that I am knowledgable about. I made minor and rather insignificant edits to the page Rod Rohrich which primarily included editing the number of papers he has written (as this information is incorrect and outdated). The remainder of the information on his page is accurate and has existed without issue on wikipedia for a long time. I was trying to update the numbers an as a result a lot of the information there got deleted. I would appreciate if we could have my edits go through as I do not think it is fair to the individual to have information deleted because I was trying to update numbers of books/chapters etc. I have no financial interests or connection and I am certainly not getting paid (unfortunately). Thank you Downstatedoc (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Any addition that includes, inter alia, "Distinguished Professor who has been recognized internationally for his contributions in the field of plastic]] and reconstructive surgery, education, and his work in rhinoplasty, facial aesthetics, and aging" is outright promotional and as a result I understand your editing opportunities are somewhat curtailed.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}  

Tanacon incident

Just a heads up on Tanacon incident. I declined your no context speedy deletion request because there is, in fact, context. WP:A1 is pretty specific: "If any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it, A1 is not appropriate." A quick google search of the title lead to quite a few articles with further information.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Why delete five core electronics

It's a company listed in National stock exchange of India, and yet you delete it why ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmanmohan (talk • contribs) 08:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe so, but there is nothing on Wikipedia to demonstrate notability. Please read WP:GNG. Many companies listed on stock exchanges are not notable in Wikipedia terms.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Philippines Urban Living Solutions (PULS)

Hi Vellela, I noticed that you put the Philippines Urban Living Solutions (PULS) page for deletion after my edit. I have checked all the listed references on that page and none of them are press releases or regurgitations. The company is a known subsidiary of the SM Investments company. Will adding more references help? I can see a lot of them online. Kindly reconsider the deletion. Csgir (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vellela, any update on this? Csgir (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I always prefer to let other editors make decisions about pages that I have nominated for deletion. This avoids the possibility that one editor may have an axe to grind. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added multiple references and ensured that none of them are press releases, and checked the ones listed prior to. The company is quite popular and has significant coverage. Csgir (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Leading national newspapers

Hi. I'm surprised that The Independent, Le Figaro and Het Parool are not reliable sources. Perhaps the Times and the Telegraph will be the next to go. Oh, well, I learn something new every day - thanks to Wikipedia ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung I am surprised too! Perhaps my somnambulistic editing is getting the better of me, or my fat-fingers are getting fatter. Perhaps you could give me a clue where this issue has arisen? Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now, this is an AfD reference. Certainly those newspapers are used as sources and I agree that these newspapers are reliable independent sources, but what they say about the topic was not, in my opinion, sufficient to assert notability . An interview with a barman giving notability to the school as a whole ? I didn't think so.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

That's not a straight interview. The preamble is significant coverage. That's my opinion anyway. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. ()

Hello Velella/Archives, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

dear velella

Qiqi1985 (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Floss (dance) edits - What determines if a source is reliable or not?

Hi,

While you commented on my edit that both Vimeo and Youtube are not reliable sources, why is the addition that cites a Youtube video still up on the page? Reference 3 ("First Known Floss Dance". 20 September 2013. Retrieved 2013-09-20) hyperlinks to a Youtube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_01wJMrfLOM&feature=youtu.be&t=204). Why is that source valid but my Vimeo source is not? Seems inconsistent.

Themsthefactsyo (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It isn't and it has gone.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Why are you deleting page Mohammad Amin Mamaqani?

Hi,

I saw your message today at my talk page.I don't know why have you tagged Mohammad Amin Mamaqani page for speedy deletion .It's properly sourced with references and it is also confirmed that Mohammad Amin Mamaqani is a "Grand Ayatollah" in Iraq.You may see those references,further I don't know why this page was deleted before probably i think it was either not sourced properly or the websites in the page were not opening,but now i have created the page with new references and i don't want the page to be deleted so i requested you to please remove that speedy deletion tag from page.I will be waiting for your reply.

Thanks. Tubi719 (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

For articles that have been previously deleted under the articles for deletion process, it is prudent to write the new article as a Draft and submit it for review so that it enters main space through an approved review process. Thank you  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I noticed that "Brixton Forged Wheels" as a new article was not approved. This is the same as "HRE Performance Wheels" - Please help

Cody.williston (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are absoltely right. I have nominated HRE Performance Wheels for deletion. Please have a look at the notability guidelines to understand why your draft has not be accepted yet. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Notability tag on Wesley Bell (attorney)

I removed the notability tag. He won the primary for prosecutor in a county of one million people, and there's no Republican, so he'll be the next prosecutor there. He's received enormous news coverage [1], including in the New York Times [2] (to say nothing of various other national media here in the U.S.).--Chaser (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion of Sudarshan Venu

Hi Velella. I'm just letting you know that I've declined your speedy deletion request on this article - G4 only applies if the reposted article is essentially similar to the deleted version, and in this case, more content and sources had been added; it was about twice the size of the deleted version. (Since you can't see the deleted version there's no way for you to compare them, so you couldn't have known that - this isn't a criticism of your tagging!) The new sources aren't great, and I think a case could be made for putting this new version through AFD again; feel free to do so if you wish. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

MoneyPass: This article may contain improper references to self-published sources.

Velella: Neither source referenced on the MoneyPass page is self-published. Both sources are legitimate industry publications. Please justify the addition of this tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iskiusbank (talk • contribs) 18:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure why I should have to trawl through edits to find an article because you can't be bothered to provide a link? However, the answer is that both references are neither independent nor reliable since they are both press releases.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Cotton: Fantastic Night Dreams

I noticed you nominated the game for AFD in 2016. I was just researching the game today, and found a review in Console+ magazine, issue 19. For old video games the primary source of coverage is going to be print magazines, and retrospective books, which don't show up on Google search results. So try not to rush to AFD just because an old game has few sources. Pretty much 100% of them pass GNG, the issue is accessing those sources, which can sometimes be difficult. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Believe you me, I don't rush to anything. The requirement to be on Wikipedia is being sourced. An article only survives if somebody has found reliable and independent sources. I am certainly not going to go kicking my heels just in case someone, at some time in the future find good sources. That isn't how it works.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hyperparameter optimization and AutoML

You decided to undo my updates to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperparameter_optimization and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_machine_learning

The argument that was provided is the following: "it may be a hybrid, but nothing suggests that it is notable - link spam ?"

You claimed that nothing suggests that it is notable. You didn't support this argument. My best guess is that your assessment was biased due to the fact the solver is commercial. Note that some other contributions to the same article, e.g., "Added BOCS" "Added DEAP as an evolutionary framework" It was not required to submit any additional information for their cases. Here, some facts about what is notable about the submitted solver:

i) It supports multi-objective optimization, i.e., when multiple objectives can be optimized simultaneously to find Pareto optimal solutions. To my best knowledge, none of the mentioned packages except for Deap support it. The difference, however, that the proposed solver is about 10x faster than NSGA-II and MO-CMA-ES used in Deap.

ii) It supports constraints. I am not aware of this option supported in any of the mentioned solvers.

iii) It supports multi-fidelty, i.e., a possibility to exploit low-fidelity evaluations. I am not aware of this option supported in any of the mentioned solvers.

iv) It is a SaaS and not an open source library which is very notable given that the number of SaaS of this kind is below 5 to my best knowledge.

v) It has a free licence for academics that makes it academia-friendly.

vi) The solver is accessible from the greatest number of languages compared to all other frameworks.

Also note, that the contribution did not involve any comparison to say that the proposed solver is better than the other mentioned solvers. Thus it was not promotional. Also, it was of the same text volume as the other contributions and thus didn't spam with some useless information.

I provided some arguments why this contribution is notable. Now, please provide your arguments. As I mentioned above, my current guess is that your assessment is biased due to the fact that the solver is commercial. This is, however, not a compatible argument to post the contribution as a Spam.

None of the above. Notability as used here means that it doesn't satisfy the English Wikipedia definition of notability. Equally, a new single purpose account only adding links to a piece of commercial software will always set alarm bells ringing. This is typical editing behaviour of a company employee or a paid editor. In the absence of any declaration of any conflict of interest, I must assume the worst case position and revert the edits. For the record, neither edit added anything of significant value or encyclopaedic worth to the article.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I have a few notes regarding your arguments:

i) You make strong claims about the lack of notability (also, see iii) but do not provide any evidence for your expert knowledge in the domain to make such judgments.

ii) You replied as "None of the above" to "my current guess is that your assessment is biased due to the fact that the solver is commercial" while also mentioning "This is typical editing behaviour of a company employee or a paid editor." which rather confirms my original guess.

iii) You mentioned notability as an argument referred to the wiki page. Note that this page starts with "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." while here we discuss a one-liner contribution of a software to a set of software packages. Note that the same Notability page has a clear section called "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article" saying that the internal lists of articles are judges by whether they are "noteworthy enough". I mentioned a clear set of arguments why the contribution is noteworthy w.r.t. the other contributions on the same page.

I note that (iii) is the key and objective argument why your changes should be reverted. AutoMLhyp (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a simple mantra . WP:BRD - Bold Revert Discuss. You were bold, I reverted so please now discuss - not here- but on the article talk page. I don't find your arguments compelling, so it should be for other editors to make the appropriate judgment.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The Crests

Hello Veelella, Trying to fix the information on The Crests page. Why are you reverting my edits. Thank MaestroFan21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaestroFan21 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Because it was a direct copyright violation. Posting material copied from other sites is very strongly deprecated on Wikipedia and often leads to users having their editing privileges blocked.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not directly copied but it is all cited information. That's what is requested. How can we fix the page with accurate information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaestroFan21 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Whole sections were copied, word for word. That is unacceptable. What is required is wholly independent and reliable sources, not affiliated sources and own web-sites.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks

You should not be restoring ad hominem personal attacks to the talk page. Removing ad hominem personal attacks is permitted under the WP:TPG. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

That is not an "ad hominem" argument. This was simply saying, in a moderately robust way, that you were wrong. An "ad hominem" attack would have claimed that the argument that you made was wrong simply because it was you who made it - a very different thing.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

You're not the good guy is ad hominem - we don't refer to other editors as "good guys" and "bad guys" - it is completely inappropriate. More importantly, it is literally a statement about the editor's character definition of ad hominem - in the future, I think it would be better to discuss this with the editor at their talk page, rather then restoring something that was removed as a ad hominem attack. If you had done that, I would have restored it myself, even though I disagree with you.Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

No. Saying Your argument is wrong because your feet smell - now that would be an ad hominem argument i.e using the qualities or attributes of the opposition positing the argument as a reason for discrediting it, rather than the quality of the argument itself.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

White wagtail edit removal

Firstly, I am writing on rather a small screen and hence cannot guarantee 100% correct spelling. Secondly, info is included in other part of article, "description" . Qwerty number1 (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

If your screen is not big enough to check the spelling of your edits, then it is probably inadvisable to use that device. I am sure that you would agree that it is unreasonable to expect other editors to clean up your poor spelling.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Is it not unreasonable to expect that if an editor sees poor spelling they don't just delete correct, and perhaps useful, information. It makes more.sense for them to fix the spelling. Qwerty number1 (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Had there been value to the statement, I might have done, but stating that one sub-species behaves much like another is hardly encyclopaedic. For the record scientific names of species (and sub-species) should always be rendered in italic in Wikipedia as per the manual of style.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

"Imagine a world where every human being can freely share in the sum of human knowledge. That's our commitment" . How will that.happen if correct information is deleted because the editor had dyslexia and to small a svreen and therefore made a typo!? Qwerty number1 (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

So what does spelling matter!? Qwerty number1 (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia foundation says.on one.of.its.pages (values) not.to leave people.out. Therefore you are ,by.pointing.out slight spelling.mistakes, excluding dyslexics and those using small.svreens. Qwerty number1 (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Seemingly, it was important enough in the description section of the article. Qwerty number1 (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Rendered.in italics-.ok.fine,.so.what!!! Why.dont u do it then if you csn bother.yourself to copy in the.wiki policy on THAT!!! Qwerty number1 (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Beforw yoy deny it your.comment says "very poor spellin" Qwerty number1 (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Everyone makes spelling mistakes when entering text. Most get corrected before publishing the changes by using the preview function. If any of mine do get through, I try to immediately correct them with another edit. This is important because it is the text of an encyclopaedia that is widely used by millions of people. However, edit summaries cannot be changes and are not part of the body of encyclopaedia so some spelling errors may be found there. Nobody will criticise you or anyone else for edit summary spelling mistakes unless they are patently trying to fool or confuse the reader.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

    I'll extend the olive branch.
    I have a suggestion, I will sort out the spelling if you let the comment stay.

Qwerty number1 (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

lack of professionalism

Stop the nonsense. first of all, you want external links removed, so remove the external links then it is something else. Get a life mate. Sperm Donation is my domain and the evolution of it this is valid information I don't think you should be editing a topic you clearly know nothing about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamhooperdonor (talk • contribs) 13:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The issue is not about external links, it is about inserting a block of text with no valid sources and no hint of encyclopaedic worth.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Geez your full of it there is plenty of sections in that wiki page then that would be deleted based on that poor excuse of yours. Look me up on google there is valid evidence on what I have been doing on the evolution of sperm donation, this is nothing but a power trip on your behalf if you're going to remove something at least do your own research rather than disregard it based on a subject you know very little about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamhooperdonor (talk • contribs) 14:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Sensor Tower Exchange

Hi Velella, I'm looking to create a neutral page for Sensor Tower on Wikipedia because we're known as a research firm that is cited by sources. We've been in business since 2013 and my inclusion of the media sources were used to show that we're frequently cited as a data source. If it's better to remove these, then I'm happy to do that. I'm aware that as an employee of the company, I have a COI, which I've noted in my talk section. I'll review the rest of the guidelines again to make sure that my relationship to the company is transparent. I'm not looking to pitch our company here on Wikipedia, but since it is a source of information, I wanted to give Sensor Tower a profile where users and those interested can review basic information on who we are, when we were founded, our founders, some history on how were we started, funding, and the names of our products - in a neutral way. Happy to edit or change anything that sounds otherwise. In the meantime, I'll continue to look for more information and sources to add to the profile that adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCSensorTower (talk • contribs) 19:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

About my edit in Floss

So, how can I prove the source otherwise (eyes can see the video, but if you wouldn't accept YouTube) ?

90.14.138.103 (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

There are many, many things that cannot be put onto Wikipedia and this is just one of them. Wikipedia is not a collection of everything that is known about but rather an encyclopaedia of those things that can be supported by independent and reliable sources. NeitherYouTube nor any social media (Facebook, Instagram, twitter etc. etc.) are regarded as acceptable sources. Sorry.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Question regarding Draft:Cogo Labs

Hi Velella!

Thank you for reviewing my Draft:Cogo Labs article. Sounds like it would be necessary to find some sources which are more independent in order for this to be an article. This is similar to the advice that experienced Wikipedia user HouseOfChange gave me when I consulted him prior to submitting anything for review. I am a little new to the Wikipedia article creation process, but what about if one characterized the Draft:Cogo Labs as a stub rather than an article? Perhaps it could be a way for it to get out there, and other users could then for instance add more independent sources. Might that be a suitable way to approach this, and consistent with Wikipedia guidelines?

Best, Blue.painting (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

HouseOfChange has been around on Wikipedia for 4 years or so and makes a very valid point. You might also start by reading WP:GNG which provides a general background to the notability requirements of Wikipedia. These requirements apply to all articles whether they are stubs, start class or fully expanded articles. This is the very basic threshold that every new article must pass. The answer therefore is no, there is no certain way to get any article into main-space and get it to stay there unless it meets the notability criteria. Sorry.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Move article "Stir-fried ice cream" to "Rolled ice cream"

I would like to move the "Stir-fried ice cream" article to a new name "Rolled ice cream". I have submitted this move twice and it worked; however, I have noticed that you change it back to "Stir-fried ice cream". I received a notification from you saying "Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Stir-fried ice cream." I am posting here because I believe that "Rolled ice cream" does in fact make more sense than "Stir-fried ice cream" and here is why. An article/interview from 'The Splendid Table' written on July 24, 2018 refers to this type of ice cream as "Thai Rolled Ice Cream" in the title and throughout the article. The owner of a Thai Rolled Ice Cream parlor mentions that Stir-fried ice cream is a nickname to Thai Rolled Ice Cream as it is an analogy for how the rolls come to be made, but the actual end product is the rolls of ice cream. The Splendid Table From CBS News, an article from 2017 features a special, titled "Today's Special: Rolled Ice Cream". The article discusses what this style of ice cream is, the process to forming the end product and the craze of this trend that has expanded globally. This article from CBS News does not mention stir-fried ice cream, but does mention rolled ice cream and ice cream rolls. CBS News Stores that have picked up on this trend refer to this style of ice cream and rolled ice cream. A restaurant in the DMV called "520 Ice Cream and Tea" refers to their ice cream as rolled ice cream, as does La Moo, a ice cream parlor in Arlington. This title for this ice cream stretches all the way across the country to California. A store named "Cold Rolled Ice Cream Company" refers to their ice cream as rolled or rolls, not stir-fried. 520 Ice Cream and Tea , La Moo , Cold Rolled Ice Cream For these reasons listed above I would like to move the "Stir-fried ice cream" article to the new name "Rolled ice cream". --Latte2424 (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The answer is to propose a move on the article talk page with your rationale and let others express their views and wait till a clear consensus emerges. It is usual to let such discussions run for at least a month unless a very clear consensus emerges earlier. An admin will typically close the discussion. To initate a move discussion please see this for guidance. I can't initiate this discussion as I am opposed to the move. Hope that this helps.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Shepherd Bushiri

Shepherd Bushiri

• Shepherd Bushiri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for your input. Trying to get the article established to meet Wikipedia's requirements. Could you give me some direction if there are more issues? I believe I have addressed them appropriately. Thanks! wrmii (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

You have reinstated volumes of text not supported by references and made it back into the puff piece that I was trying to move it away from. You have also asked it to be protected from vandalism - can you point me to that recent vandalism? All the edits since 5th September appear to be good-faith edits even though some of the motives behind some of the editing may not be fully supportive of building an accurate and well sourced encyclopaedia.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   18:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

MT4talk

Hello, Can you please tell me the reason why are contesting the publication of the article ? i added some external secondary sources. Can you please the speedy deletion Notice? Thank you very much. Experio2018 (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

You have been around almost as long as me so I won't give the standard lecture about notability and WP:GNG - but it just doesn't cut it. Doesn't even get close. Sorry.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Velella: Actually this user's account was registered in August 2018 [3]. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Drm310 Thanks for that. I was just out doing some autumn gardening and thinking through how unlikely this scenario was - and my first planned action on returning here was to check out the edit history - you have saved me the effort and absolutely confirmed in my own mind that I was right. Many thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

approve the page

Hello, Can you please tell me the reason why are contesting the publication of the article ? i added some external secondary sources. Can you please remove the speedy deletion Notice? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onetwo99 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Having an heading approve the page is hardly likely to engage my enthusiasm. Since I last edited Sheeba Alam you have changed three words, echoing my own edit that there was no evidence at all of a hit song. You have added no new references or improved any that pre-existed. I invite you to take a guess at whether I am likely to remove the CSD template.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I have added more references, please go through it. Regards

Please read wikipedia guide to notability. These are not references that convey any notability.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

Hello Velella/Archives, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news

• The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.

As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.

• There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.

Other

• A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.

Moving to Draft and Page Mover

• Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
• If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
• Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
• The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js^(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
• The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget. In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions. MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues. User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page) User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50). User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you. User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link. User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion. User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

League of Legends

You just completed a move (reverting an undiscussed move) to Leaugue of Legends, which is misspelled. (Leaugue versus League.) General Ization ^Talk 12:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

NM, I see Ivanvector made the correction. General Ization ^Talk 12:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Apologies. An unintended error whilst trying to stem a flood of vandal edits. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem. However, the Talk page seems to have been left behind at Talk:Leaugue of Legends. General Ization ^Talk 12:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I blundered it. One of the double redirect fixing bots had already "fixed" the redirects to "Leaugue" and then I script-deleted all of them. I think I've fixed that now but you guys might want to check my work. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Talk page still appears to be at Talk:Leaugue of Legends. General Ization ^Talk 12:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I got it now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Maintenance templates

Placing tags on articles that don't need them is a form of vandalism. Please stop. --evrik ^(talk) 16:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Evrik: You are entitled to a difference of opinion about the need for maintenance templates on articles, but not to accuse others of vandalism for placing them. Discuss them with the editor (who I'll note seems to have more experience here than you do) here, and without accusations. General Ization ^Talk 16:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@General Ization:, please tell me how you define 'more experience'? In any case, the template was not needed. Putting it on a long established and vetted article is unnecessary, putting it up a second time is aggressive. --evrik ^(talk) 17:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Evrik: I define Wikipedia "experience" as a combination of time as an editor (based on registration date), total number of edits, and user rights assigned (which reflects trust by the user community). Velella has you on the first two, and matches you on the third, as you can easily see for yourself. Not a foolproof system for determining editing skill (or talent), but a highly reliable method of determining how you should initiate an approach to another editor, and certainly an indicator of whether you have any cause to refer to them as a vandal (the Wikipedia definition of which you should re-read, along with Civility, Wikipedia is not a battleground and Assume good faith). General Ization ^Talk 18:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

evrik Correction, removing tags from pages that have no third party sources and therefore have no claim to notability is risking a nomination to AfD. Even if you were right, and if I was counting I could still only make that two reverts over a period of three days. So let's stick with the truth - "A Scout is truthful" - and a bit of consideration - "A Scout is friendly and considerate" - would be good mantras if you want to avoid me taking the whole article to AfD.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Truth? The article has three third party sources. I placed the warning their early because of the unnecessary and aggressive editing, oh and the tag placed on my talk page by Velella. --evrik ^(talk) 17:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Hook, James; Franck, Dave; Austin, Steve (1982). An Aid to Collecting Selected Council Shoulder Patches with Valuation.
• "Search engine for councils and districts".
• Nelson, Bill. "Organization of the Boy Scouts of America". U.S. Scouting Service Project. Retrieved March 12, 2008.

OK. I may have made some assumptions here. For an article to be notable it needs several, ideally many, sources that are both independent and reliable, such as reputable National or State Newspapers, National Magazines of merit, National or state TV stations that have reputations for truth and reliability etc. The Scout Association of America is not independent, a site about collecting badges doesn't seem to add anything to the article (and it is effectively a one man blog) and the US Scouting Service project also appears to be a one-man site which casts some questions on its reliability but is quite clearly, strongly affiliated. I don't have any beef with you evrik as an editor, I place the same standards on all articles that I encounter. I have held fairly senior positions in the UK Scout Association and wish the Scouting movement well, but Wikipedia has adopted a set of standards and principles and I try to do my best to uphold those standards and principles. In summary what this article needs is several reliable and independent sources. I have looked and not found any, if you can find them, then great.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   18:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Evrik: Clearly Velella feels (and I happen to agree) that an article that contains as many claims as this one does (concerning, by my count, 458 distinct organizations) should have citations of more than three independent sources for its content (even assuming that scouting.org and usscouts.org could be referred to as "independent," a claim of which I'm unsure). Also, you may want to review WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This sure seems to me like an argument against keeping this article here, especially without better sourcing. General Ization ^Talk 18:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks and query

Valella, thank you for suggesting the best way to consolidate my two user accounts - I am a new editor to Wikipedia, and created the 2 accounts inadvertently through forgotten password and secondary browser session. I will update both profiles to reflect this keep only one active.

On your second point on 'link spam', i'm afraid i have to query this. I work in water hygiene/legionella control, and am constantly surprised by the lack of understanding around what training is absolutely required in this area, and when i checked on Wikipedia, there was little to no mention of its importance. The company i referenced are a highly respected authority in the industry, hence using them as the reference. If you have advice on how I can better reference this, then I welcome it, but otherwise i do not understand how this could be a 'spam link' when it is linking readers to a respected source of information that was previously missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdwphen (talk • contribs) 13:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

There are many excellent references to Legionella from WHO and public national and regional health experts. It is always best to avoid using any source that appears to be advertising its products - this always looks like spam. A WHO link or one from the NHS or similar health providers or from a reputable academic source can never be misconstrued in that way and can also be more likely to provide unbiased guidance. The links that you added were simple advertisements for H&S training courses, some of which happened to be about Legionella. By any definition, this was link spam.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Groshong line

Hello Velella, I have noticed you have deleted all of my editing on the Groshong Line page. your reason for this was that you believe it was promotional. I am actually a medical student doing an assignment on editing wikipedia articles related to medicine. So, for clarification can you explain to me what aspects of my editing were highly promotional? I felt that I merely stated facts about the groshong line. Additionally, I even added articles that shown a lack of efficacy in certain areas, included review articles and RCTs to substantiate the statements made. Hope you could be of help.

Best wishes,

Klaw12 (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Seeing text with names marked as registered trademarks is always a red-flag on Wikipedia. If it can't be written without ®, then it probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The very first sentence if reference by a commercial source - certainly not independent. Commercial sources are permitted if there is no better source but this appeared to be a highly promotional source right at the start of the article. Having critically re-examined the article, I remained confirmed in my view that I was correct to revert your edit and I am now wholly unconvinced that this article is in fact notable. I believe that this material should rather be a short paragraph at best in Central venous catheter.

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for your anti-vandalism work! Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 19:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. Much appreciated. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

My edit being speculation?

It is public knowledge that Fife Council plans are planning to build a new block near the art department. Are you even researching these things before undoing them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pringlelad (talk • contribs) 23:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't deal in speculation. It deals in those things that are reported by reliable and independent sources. So when the news appears in "The Scotsman", then is the time to add it here. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Garantibank International NV -- Article review

Hi Velella,

I have noted you have declined the article that I wrote about Garantibank International NV due to my relation with the company and for several reasons. However I have noted that there are a lot companies filed under same structure, without to many references and users directly linked to entities. You may see details on below mentioned links which are in the same list as GarantiBank international NV which is a Dutch bank in Netherlands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banks_in_the_Netherlands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kempen_%26_Co -- (reference only to bank's website) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Volksbank --- (not much reference, only to their website) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIBC_Bank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Lanschot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DHB_Bank

I would appreciate if you can reconsider your review on the article and inform me what kind of corrections would you need to publish this article. As I'm quite new to Wikipedia, I would appreciate your guidance on the matter. Please note that I have changed my username as it should not be directly related to the company name, however as per user policy I can use a different name together with the company's name which I tried to do so. ( Like Adam at XYZ company etc)

Hope to hear from you soon Best Regards E. Derdiyok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ederdiyok.garanti (talk • contribs) 13:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Ederdiyok.garanti I will only consider that when you have done two things. Clearly identified on both accounts that you have created that you are operating two accounts on Wikipedia and have also made appropriate declarations of conflict of interest or paid editing on both account user-pages. You already have the links on your talk page.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your work in helping edit an article immediately after it was tagged as needing it. Ifnord (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated! The article did stand out a bit like a sore thumb in need of attention.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Article Deletion

Hi Velella, I was just hoping you could please approve my submission for Ariel Beesley. I cited a ton of sources that show why she is of significant importance. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdeleman (talk • contribs) 21:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

This would be the one I nominated for speedy deletion would it? Is this also the one where there is an identical Draft article still out there? The one where the draft was moved to mainspace without review? So we have a press release, some adverts and a swathe of YouTube videos - where in all of this is notability to be found? I am confused as to the reason why I should reverse my earlier thinking, I would welcome enlightenment. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Kane edit

Why did you revert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keditz (talk • contribs) 12:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Please see message on your talk page. Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Kane edit

Okay I agree I forgot that I took out the guardian ranking. Also I didn't state that he's the best it's 'one of the best' and has 2 reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keditz (talk • contribs) 12:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Enjoy yourself!

I know we have fought over edits, both trying to do the right thing. However, I just wanted to say that you must have the patience of a saint and to thank you for your great work. Have a great day, and I have a goldfish to give to you!

Qwerty number1 has given you a goldfish! Goldfish promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day much better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a goldfish, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Give someone a goldfish by adding {{subst:Goldfish}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Qwerty number1 (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, much appreciated - perhaps I should start learning how to spell now!  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Velella/Archives, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal

• There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
• Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

• ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
• There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

New scripts

• User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Could you offer me some help?

Hi Velella! I'm a newcomer of Wikipedia. And I'm now writing my first draft, which, was declined twice by you. . . At the first time, my draft consisted of only 4 references, so it's no wonder that it was declined. However, it has 25 references now, but.
So what do you think I should do in order to keep that draft from being declined? You know, the manga my article introduces is a self-published one, or a doujinshi, so I'm not able to get as many references as needed. Those are all I can find. Plus, It's my first draft, having an special meaning for me. I really want it to be moved into the encyclopedia space. Help me please.

If I had a link to a page, and if you had signed your post, I might be a little bit clearer in understanding what you are requesting.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I've forgotten it: Draft:Helper SHIBETA. Thanks.Brotherdogger (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about those things that other reputable sources have discussed and shown to be notable. Self published works have, in my experience, never been deemed to be notable. I guess there may be odd exceptions where self published works have been taken up by a commercial publisher and then been reviewed by reliable independent sources, but these are very few and far between. Wikipedia is absolutely not about promoting a self published work. I would recommend reading what Wikipedia is not and the five pillars for more background. Even if the topic of your draft was notable (which it isn't) the content would be wholly unsuitable - Wikipedia looks for brief summaries of key players and content, and not a detailed description of each character. This is borne out by the evidence of one editor recently nominating it for speedy deletion. I am sorry, but your Draft is extremely unlikely to ever be suitable for Wikipedia - there may be other outlets on the Web which may be better repositories for this material.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Non-compromised Pendulum

@Velella: hi . You have reviewed the article: Draft:Non-compromised Pendulum, and noted that it has no reliable and independent sources. The article doesn't have even one press release, it has four book reviews, for example: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Could you please tell, what exactly looks as advertisement in the article in your opinion? Can you review article one more?-Aspireforintelligence (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I very rarely review Draft articles more than once. This avoids accusations of bias and it also allows another editor to take an independent view. You might, however, be prepared to explain to the next reviewer how all these book references include identical text. I have been reviewing articles here for more than 10 years, and this looked like a book advert to me.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply. I attached 5 links above, they are all from different authors, with different content and are located in different editions. In addition, some of them are in different languages. I can still increase the list of sources. And they will all be different in content. Therefore, I ask for objectivity. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Aspireforintelligence (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Hi The edit you just made that deleted all of my work, You were actually wrong im the head custodian at Hampshire high school. my kid and his buddies made a sauce that they want put on the school cafe. HHS already knows im doing it Noo trace at all (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow! Head custodian at the school eh? Hmmmm.....let me ponder that a while.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

One more question please?

Hi Velella! Thanks for your detailed answer about my article Draft:Helper SHIBETA. Now I've realized it's not suitable for an encyclopedia. However, I've spent almost almost a month editing it -- so it's a pity that it can't be approved. Thus, I've come up with a few suggestions (questions) :

1. Is there another encyclopedia where I can publish my article? If so, I can put that draft there.
2. Can this article be kept in Wikipedia whereas it's not moved to the encyclopedia space? In this way, people who search for this manga in Google may still be able to read this article, while it's not in the encyclopedia.
3. Can I make a redirect to my sandbox where contains this draft? Accordingly, if the manga is searched for in Wikipedia, that article will be seen.
   

Thanks sincerely! Brotherdogger (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you help?

User 14.200.91.223 has been offended me by saying that I, in particular, make wiki unpleasant Saying I know nothing about copyright Saying I am malicious and disruptive Saying I have no sense of humour Saying I have a bad temper Telling me my comprehension skills are poor Saying I am hostile Posting that I'm not helping Wikipedia's environment Saying people like me have made Wikipedia into 'a nasty edit-warring trash fire' And then saying that I owe an apology!? Here is a link [[14]]

I have looked through their talk page and seen that they have already been given a final warning for offending someone else another time.

Can you help me? Qwerty number1 (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. It is totally unacceptable to make legal threats and I have posted a notice on the talk-page as a warning. This may get picked up by an admin and further action may be taken. The rest of the behaviour is also unacceptable as hostile, bullying and abusive. If it continues I would strongly suggest filing a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents providing links to the unacceptable edits and let admins take a view. You will need to notify the offending editor that you have done so. Hope that that helps. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft review

Hey, since you reviewed and commented on Draft:Non-compromised_Pendulum, maybe you can review it again for the user soon. He/she requested at the Help Desk for it to be reviewed and has done work on it since the last decline. Thanks. JC7V-talk 21:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Equal Pay for Equal Work

Hi! I looked at the link you gave for potential copying in Draft:Equal Pay for Equal Work, but all the overlap I could see was a block of text correctly quoted. Had you noticed something else as well? I spot-checked a few likely-looking phrases, but got no hits. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Nayeem

Hi. You edited Nayeem (gangster), would you mind checking latest discussion on the Talk page please. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

future self redirect?

Hi Velella,

Thank you for your suggestion to redirect the "future self" article to the "self-concept". I am new to Wikipedia and will work on my encyclopedic style. I appreciate your suggestion.

That said, I believe the future self is a distinct topic from the self-concept for the following reasons: (1) the psychological theories and applications are distinct, and (2) the psychological literatures for the two topics have essentially no overlap. The sources of the future self article are entirely from top peer-reviewed psychology and consumer behavior journals. Please let me know why you believe the future self is covered under the self-concept.

Thanks, JSRpsych (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Velella/Archives,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

• Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Yolandanavas (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you please check your email? I also request help on uploading our crest and/or images of our school etc..

Please direct me..

I am a teacher at St. Martin Secondary who is trying to update our page, to follow other similar schools in our board. I am not sure how I am in conflict of interest, nor do I wish to be revoked rights to update.

Could you please give me guidelines of how I can properly update our page? It is very outdated and we have many Notable Alumni plus we wish to give an explanation to the programs we offer. Just like the other schools in our board do.

My apologies for not doing this correctly. I am new to this process.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolandanavas (talk • contribs) 23:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

You have a major issue in that you definitely do have a conflict of interest. As a teacher at the school , you do not have an independent view. This is clearly shown when you use "we" and "our" in some of the text and edit summaries. In fairness, you have stated on your user page that you are a teacher at the school and this is not an association that you have tried to hide.

If you have read the links I posted to your talk page about conflict of interest, you will have noted that the only way to update this article is to post material to the article talk page and leave it for other, uninvolved, editors to decide whether it should be included. However, it is unlikely that any editor is going to object to your posting the names of notable alumni provided that they already have an article on Wikipedia and that article confirms their attendance at the school. It would also help if the school website was a little more helpful - several of the pages are blank which is not of much help to other editors trying to assist you.

In general, Wikipedia is not here to promote a school or join in any school celebrations. Anything that looks in the slightest bit promotional is likely to be deleted. What you really need is reliable and independent sources (newspapers, books, radio or TV) talking about and discussing the school and which can be used to support relevant content. The fact that other school articles are promotional and use flowery language is only because no experienced editor has noticed them. Please see WP:other stuff exists. Apologies if Wikipedia is a little daunting, it does get easier with time and experience.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   00:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Velella. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you.

		The Civility Barnstar
		Thank you for your civil and constructive redirection of those recent Conflict of Interest edits. I am very cynical about Wikipedia's community, so it's very important to me to provide recognition where it's due. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 00:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been travelling, so apologies for the tardy response. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Massage with subject December 2018 from you Velella

Hi, thanks for your message. It wasn't a disruptive editing, really, I just made a mistake I fixed completely, no mess left at all, the page is perfect, finally I just added 1 photo, that is all I have changed. I wanted to rearrange the order and the topics of the content, I think they are not well arranged, because Byzantine architecture is not a part of Antiquity but of Medieval architecture. Don't worry and wait till the editing is completed, I was in the process. No need of blocking me, I am very responsible editor, still a bit ignorant, but responsible. (MiltenR (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC))

"ACT! for America" page

I've been trying to add to that article and have gotten nothing but grief about it. I've literally added three sentences about three different topics, all with citations that seem to conform to wiki's rules. I've not presented them in a positive or negative light, I've simply added a small bit of info about their "Non-Discrimination and Anti-Violence Policy", directly pertinent to the claim some have made that they're a hate-group. I'm not adjudicating the matter, or even attempting to. I'm simply adding some information about it with legitimate citations. And I briefly update, without making revisions to any past versions, their CLAIMED membership (along with a citation to their homepage which makes the claim). I have no idea how anyone could take issue with my completely neutral update of that page. I can see why more people don't make the effort. If I'm violating the rules, explain how so I can do a better job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nearestdexterity (talk • contribs) 01:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Very simply the sources don't conform to Wikipedia's rules. They are neither reliable nor independent.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   01:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources

Why do I feel like we're really disagreeing about something else?Nearestdexterity (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I am talking about the quality of sources. If you have another agenda, please clarify that on the article talk page. I would hate for us to be wasting time on the wrong topic.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   03:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Apologise

Hello Velella, I am so sorry I removed that line. It was an accident and i just saw the message. But just to ask, why was my article declined as I have proper books, newspaper articles and magazines for reference. Please do advice as I spent months writing about this and i just recently got my Wiki account and want the world to see my research. Please do help me out.

Please do read the notability guidelines. All articles on Wikipedia must be about notable topics and notability is established using reliable and independent sources that discuss the topic. Your draft signally fails to include such sources and, to be frank, it reads like pure fiction. It would need a great deal of work to make it acceptable as a wikipedia article if there is anything notable therein. Sorry  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Sheikh Eid bin Mohammad Al Thani Charitable Association

hello villa,,,

i am ibrahim, i have this task from the assosiciation itself to update its data , so kindly help me instead of removing what i am doing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahim Kamal abdalla (talk • contribs) 18:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

First, you must declare your affiliation on your user page - please see this guidance. If you are an employee or are being paid or rewarded in any way for editing here, you must also abide by these guidelines.

Secondly, your edits were removing text supported by references and replacing it with unreferenced text. Any significant additions must be supported by independednt and reliable sources.

Thirdly, much of what you wrote was very flowery "peacock" phrasing. I am aware that there are cultural differences in the style of writing about high ranking people and their achievements, but on Wikipedia, text is restricted to facts supported by sources, and interpretation is left to the reader. From the articel history, it looks as though much text was copied from other sources in breach of copyright protection. This is wholly unacceptable and can lead to an editing ban. I hope that these comments help.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

moved to draft

Hi Velella, what is a more reliable source for a filmography than IMDB? Or is the references for the biographical information the only issue? I understand that certain things are not verified on IMDB and the site will mark them as unverified, but there is also a lot of subjects such as films and awards that are verified and only added after strict investigation. Perhaps in the meantime while I and other editors improve the article with better citations, I should edit the page to only list the filmography and awards? (Celluloid Film Fan (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC))

i LIght Marina Bay wiki page

Hi Velella, would you know how to change the main image on the right side of the screen? We would like to change it but are unsure how to.

Thanks for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahalkaff (talk • contribs) 03:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes I would.But first you need to stop adding all this promotional guff to the article. Continue in this way and your editing rights will be withdrawn. Please let me know when you are ready to edit in an appropriate way. Thank you.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   06:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Hello, I am sending my message because my edits were deleted I made changes in the content of the attached link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh_Eid_bin_Mohammad_Al_Thani_Charitable_Association

I added all references from I have added Information from other links of Wikipedia and international newspapers about the charity contributions and organizational structure, I also added all references for the information provided. Kindly provide me with reasons for such deletion and I would try to comply with the instructions while my edit. Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemat Mustafa (talk • contribs) 07:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Having deleted sourced text in your latest set of edits, you replace the text with sentences such as "He was one of the honorable figures of the State of Qatar known for his love and keenness for good, and seeking tirelessly to carry out charitable projects in Qatar and abroad. Considering his desire to continue this good, he made a will to designate a third of his inheritance for charitable acts seeking for God's sakes and as a desire for reward" with no supporting text. This is peacock phrasing and unacceptable on Wikipedia unless it is a quote from a reliable and independent source and is relevant to the article. I see no evidence of any source or any relevance of such wording. Please explain.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello Velella/Archives,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.

Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.

Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

by Mr. Naman Agrawal

i had made this meme. what the hell then can be the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Naman Agrawal (talk • contribs) 07:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. I could have hardly expressed it better myself. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)