User talk:Velella

Knights Templar

Adding citation gives of an Unknown Error

templeofosiris.tk

Osirian Knight (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably due to the tk domain Osirian Knight (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

More likely because of the addition of text with no reliable independednt source.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   07:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Any snippet code you suggest to debug such an issue so I can properly add the site Citation? Osirian Knight (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Sigh....... What you are trying to add has no evidence of any notability. Please read WP:GNG before doing any more edits. No amount of coding or snippets will make it any more acceptable.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   07:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like im building a fresh page. I'll use the new wiki page as a citation

Thank you this helps, The issue is being resolved.

Dominic LaCavera Jr. Grand Master (Pro tem)

Osirian Knight (talk) 07:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

This is regarding Rishabh H Puri Article

Hi,

You have nominated Rishabh page for deletion. Tyhe reason you have mentioned there that the reference are about self promotion. I don't think so those are for self promotion. Please reconsider your step.

Also take a look at this https://books.google.co.in/books?id=jEFmDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Rishabh+Puri,%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6gdufwc7fAhWNknAKHereCSYQ6wEIKTAA#v=onepage&q&f=false he has done so much & also working in entermain industry as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.234.209 (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Since this is the first Wikipedia edit from this IP address, may I assume that you do actually have a username and are editing whilst signed out? In which case perhaps you could confirm your user-name and you relationship to the subject of the article. Thank you  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the Omega Recording Studios Page

Hello Velella,

Good Afternoon! I was wondering if you could let me continue to edit the Omega Recording Studios page? I am new to the Wiki editor and and taking some time to learn it. I will be adding sources for all of the information I have put up, but it takes time! Can you please revert the edit you did so I can continue to work? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Springer (talk • contribs) 22:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Your contribution lacked any independednt and reliable sources. In addition it appeared to change a factual article into an advertisment for the studios with a great deal of promotional and peacock phrasing. It all strongly suggests that you have a personal interest in the studios or are being paid to "improve" the article. If you are really here to imrpove Wikipedia please take some time out over the next few weeks and months to steadily improve other articles, learn about Wikipedia conventions and avoid any promotional text.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Arundo donax

Thank you for your helpful edit to the above article. I am trying without success to locate "middle east Asia" in my world atlas. Is it in China? Thanks in advance for your help.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

It is a phrase used by most(?) many reputable Floras to designate the mostly Arabic states to the east of the mediteranean. State boundaries can be changeable but the concept of a large, typically dry area with hot to very hot summers and cold winters with low annual rainfall defines a large biome within which certain plant species are typically found.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   02:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a "Flora", nor is its readership restricted to those who read Floras. As the term "middle east asia" is unknown to most WP readers, would you please make a logical case for not employing the common term "Mideast" in its stead? Thanks.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, Wikipedia is not a flora, but most of the most reliable sources about plants are Floras. The term "Mideast" is not in use or understood by most English speakers outside of the US but "Middle East" is. Because Wikipedia endorese all common variants of English, "Middle East" is an accepted use and does accord with the reliable Floras. To avoid confusion I have linked the term in the article.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   04:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Andrey Ostrovsky

This was far from ready to be moved to main space. Half of it was unreferenced and half the refs there were did not even mention the person in question. Please be more careful. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Doc James I disagree. I say that in the context of a great deal of admiration and regard for your editing , especially on medicine and related topics. In this case, my searches confirmed that this person did indeed hold the position claimed and I was satisfied on that ground alone that the individual was notable. I was very concerned about the vires of the contributor and I flagged that on the editors talk page. However, I was content that the article described a notable person and the article included some references demonstrating that. I would wholly agree that overall the referencing was poor, but not so poor to give rise to concerns about notability. I see so many "notable" article about evanescent "celebrities"; boy-bands in Japan, girl-bands in Korea, winners of very minor beauty contests, 14year old who once appeared on TV and many many more in the same mould, that an article about a person whose reputation might last longer than 12 months was welcome. At new article review I find myself rejecting so many very poor Drafts, that it was welcome to review one that actually seemed to add value to Wikipedia. My aim is to improve Wikipedia and I believe that even a poor article about a notable individual is much to be preferred than a good article about a non-entity. I would like to hope that you might agree with me. Best wishes. Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   01:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I was not questing the notability of the individual. More that fact that the article was simple so poorly referenced. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

On the subject of the Spike Viper Draft Page

"You may have many references, but none of them convey any notability. In mainspace, this article would be an immediate target for deletion. What is exactly that you are trying to do? In the absence of any clarity about your intentions, even this draft may be at risk of deletion for misues of Wikipedia as a web-host. Please explain"

Dear Velella,

Me and my partner Jam_Bam_52 have read over your request and have answers to your questions you left on

1. REDIRECT talk page of our article.

What we are trying to do with our Wikipedia page is to create a source in the form of a wiki page for information about our favorite "web host" Spike Viper. From there we collaborated with several other contributors and Kobe himself to find and categorize all the information into an encyclopedia-like page for him. In the criteria of notability, we believed that Kobe had met the criteria of "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Mainly the interesting or unusual part of the quote from the Wikipedia notability page for people. We believed that he had met that criteria because he had ran a popular Minecraft server, and has been affiliated with the alt-right. On the topic of creditable citations we have had secondary source interviews with people listed in our citations. If you would like us to link to those interviews we will gladly comply.

Thank You, The Contributors of the Spike Viper Wikipedia page BMO4744 (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Notability on Wikipedia is defined at the general notability guidelines This requires that articles are supported by several reliable and indepedent sources. Your article has none of these, hence my belief that it is neither notable nor likely to survive a deletion discussion. This Draft is simply not what Wikipedia is about. I would strongly recommend finding another server which is happy to host such material. I don't believe that Wikipedia will continue to provide this service and deletion may be sudden and abrupt.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   04:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, we will be moving to a new source by Wednesday. BMO4744 (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Do you have a problem with me? I try to create my user page... and my nickname is DIIAANN (Dian is my real name) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DDIIAANN (talk • contribs) 01:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem at all, I was offering advice on your talk page. I hope it was helpful.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   01:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Maaaaaatttttteeeeee

Also nearly all of the UFC fighter stats on here are one fight short of the real MMA records. Can you please change Rose Namamjunas’ record to 9-3 as that is the correct information. Checkout UFC.com or sherdog.com Wikipedia information is pretty unreliable and useless.

Cheers. Yours truly, guy who doesn’t self obsess over Wikipedia pages 👌🏻 MoistGavin94 (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC) MoistGavin94 (talk) 12:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

No.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   02:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

HI

I understand why you had to remove the part of the page about the legend of the burger. There is no solid evidence and it is just kind of a local joke. As I go I am trying to find good sources for the information that we put. As you can tell we have already been able to cite some of our posts. I removed any of my skeptical work and/or info I am not able to back. Please let us fill the page with the info that we know. Guten Tag! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odes 69 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

In general, most editors are going to turn a blind eye to non-controversial edits about towns and cities, but controversial or unusual assertions must be sourced and any people listed should already have their own Wikipedia page (please see WP:PEOPLE for more on this). I am a bit concerned about the use of the pronoun "we" in your edit above. Who exactly are we? Guten Abend.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   07:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Fibit

Feel free to change the article back to what you think was the last good version and I won't change it PlaystationCup (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

So magnanimous. If you ever able to return, it would be great if you could act as part of the constructive community that characterises the great majority of Wikipedia editors. It didn't need me to revert your edit, the community stepped in.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   02:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Queen Mary University of London

Kindly point out which is a benign version, please note that all my work are cited and factual. With no opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sg.outside (talk • contribs) 11:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect case of vandalism : UCL academy

Dear, Velella,

I find it quite bad-mannered for you to mock me about my double deficit dyslexia publicly but I digress. I can clearly understand why you find my edits to be mendacious and believe my edits are vandalizing Wikipedia, but the fact of the matter is that I have been authorized by the IT manager to update the new construction contracts that have been outdated since the start of this year. I would gladly supply you the contracts and the evidence if you would allow me to. My colleges and I find it highly unprofessional and quite lewd about the comments you made about us, but this is the internet and people tend to say what they want. I would highly appreciate if you could allow my team to continue our work, without us being flagged for "vandalism" if you have any inquiries feel free to email me at my email [email protected]

Kinds regards Mike Bradly MiltonYa (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Please post a diff so that we can actually agree what is being discussed. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   04:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

After some investigation I have found the answer. You are, of course a sockpuppet of KH-1 -you should have said.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Quite absurd calling me a sock puppet of KH-1, could you please evaluate? MiltonYa (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, not a sock, just a vandal  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   02:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

That was a fast response

You said, and I quote, 'without adequately explaining why' When I did explain why, a simple sentence about the information being biased, manipulated and unofficial. The article text that I edited even started with the phrase "fraudulent election". According to who is it fraudulent? The international observers? Here or here maybe? or how about this?

Seriously, if you are gonna keep the biased manipulation then at least give another reason. Use your eyes please, not all of us are like you that don't read and just play like an automated biased bot.

That "not all of us are like you ..." I take as a compliment. When I see a block of text removed sourced by, amongst others, the BBC and replaced with much more dubious text with what appears to be a very partisan political agenda, then your changes were indeed made "without adequately explaining why". It appears that other editors agree with me.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   04:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Indodax Paid Editing

Hello Velella, in regards of the impression I've made in my edit of Indodax page, I'm not expecting any compensation for my action. I must inform you that English is not my main language and it might impact the impression I've made. I'm a crypto enthusiast and hope to create more page about crypto especially in southeast asia. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPhydra (talk • contribs) 10:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Pure, White and Deadly

Dear Velella, A note to thank you for removing the previous comments regarding the notability and referencing of the article on PW&D. I'm very grateful both to you and to SlimVirgin for your editorial work, and shall be writing to thank her separately. Michael Yudkin (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Michael Yudkin You're very welcome - it is much more satisfactory ensuring that something of real note and value to society gets a proper article to balance all those that appear to have little value (beauty contest winners, K-pop bands, Manga, "Celebrity" game show winners etc.) . A couple of things occurred to me on re-reading. The first long section which summarises the book, is quite daunting in its length and complexity. It also contains significant amount of text on underlying nutritional history and principles. Some of this might stand alone in a separate section to allow the summary to be significantly shortened although, I have to confess, I am not sure quite how this might be achieved. The second thought that I had would be to cross reference this to other articles which deal with sugar, diets, coronary heart disease etc by inserting pertinent sentences such as "Yudkin in 1972 published "Pure White and deadly" which foresaw ............" plus suitable references. It would be prudent to approach this gently - it isn't wise to look as though your edits are seeking to promote a book or increase book sales, but the significance of the research and the book do justify wider inclusion in other related articles. Best of luck.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   00:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Velella, Many thanks both for your kind remarks about the article and for your suggestions. Like you, I don't at the moment quite see how the stand-alone section would work, but I shall certainly give more thought to what you say and also discuss it with my co-author. About your second suggestion, are there particular articles you had in mind in which a reference to PW&D might be inserted? Best wishes, Michael Yudkin (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Velella, My co-author and I would like to be able to circulate the PW&D article, which has been so helpfully edited both by you and by SlimVirgin, among professional groups such as nutritionists, diabetologists and cardiologists. But we are not sure how to proceed without inadvertently violating Wikipedia rules. Is it OK to send copies of the article to professional organisations and journals, or to individuals we know, with a request to bring it to the attention of their members/readers/colleagues so that they can access it on Wikipedia? We should be very grateful for your guidance here. The point is, of course, that the article discusses an ongoing issue of great importance to public health, and we'd like people in the professions I've mentioned to be aware of this issue - which many of them still aren't. (In case there's any doubt about my motives, I'll just add that I don't get royalties from the book, which has now been out some time.) Best wishes Michael Yudkin (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Michael Yudkin I can think of no reason why you, or anyone else should not circulate Wikipedia content to anyone provided that the source of the information is acknowledged. Alternatively, you could send a link to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure,_White_and_Deadly . Wikipedia is all about making information freely available and I can see no problem with what you propose. If you could encourage others to find sources and references for all the main statements in the article, that would be an added bonus!

Re your previous questions, I will get back to you when I have had a chance to give it more thought. Real life is a bit hectic at present. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reassurance about circulating Wikipedia content. Concerning your request for sources and references, I've looked at the two instances of "Citation needed", which occur in the first paragraph of the "Reception" section of the article. I've now given citations to the Finnish, German and Italian editions of PW&D. I don't have a copy of the Swedish edition, and although I do have a copy of the Japanese edition I don't read Japanese and unfortunately there's no text in the Roman alphabet which gives either the title of the book or the name of the publisher. I am not clear about the "Citation needed" at the end of that paragraph, because the sentence it's referring to is just an introduction to the text below (under "Transition"). The "Transition" text gives a fuller account of the events summarised in that sentence, and consequently we thought that it was neither necessary nor appropriate to footnote the introductory sentence. Best wishes Michael Yudkin (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

BAITSSS Model Declined

Thank you for providing the feedback. Regarding the analyses the benefits of the model in a reliable and independent way, most of these models are site specific, copyrighted etc., so that it is difficult to get larger attention like people. The purpose is to develop encyclopedia of this model. Regarding the benefit of the model, someone who is in the field clearly understand what is the model about and why is it different than other and what is advantage it. I have come across the numerous Wikipedia models and software portion, which discuss couple lines of the model without even reliable citations and sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hydrology_models The question is if it's worth to put time and effort to make go through the Wikipedia for this specific model. I would appreciate your comments on this.

Regarding the figure, the figure was from author’s manuscript based on 2016 and it is also on the author's website. I am not sure how it violates the copyright.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhun9265 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

My gut feeling is that it probably is worth pursing. It would be useful to have something outside of academia discussing the model. I am not familiar with US institutions but in the UK bodies such as the British Hydrological Society or the Environment Agency discussing it or even endorsing it would be good. It does concern me that there appears to be a good deal of conflict of interest here. I strongly suspect that you are an author of the model and of at least one of the references but I see no statement to that effect on your user page. As for the image, the source identified on the Commons clearly tracks back to a document marked copyright. You may need to investigate the procedures for donating copyright to Wikipedia to overcome this hurdle. Hope that this helps  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   02:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement. In the USA, unless you got some special prize about the model, there is nothing like that, someone endorses the model, but probably venues like NASA may time to time documents these kinds of models if they use in some respects. The only way to know if they are useful if they are widely cited by the community and used. Probably you know very well, it is not like people’s fame, it's a model to help to manage water which is vital for the society. These people spend life to develop these models. If I feel this effort doesn’t worth, I will delete the draft. Regarding the copyright of the figure, I can ensure that these figures are provided by the author, and there will not be a claim of copyright. Please let me know the official procedure. I have spent a considerable time to make it professional. I myself have reviewed hundreds of article in various venues. Thank you again and looking for your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhun9265 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pure, White and Deadly

Hello! Your submission of Pure, White and Deadly at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

About "Best Worst Method" revision

Hi Velella, I just wanted to write you an answer to explain the changes made in the topic "Best Worst Method". In fact, what we did was just to report the current changes. You said that "Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy", but be sure that in our revision there is no advertising or promotional purpose. If mentioning "software" is perceived as advertising, actually we don't have to mention it. (it is not for profit, but for academic purposes). Sharing only updates to the "Best worst method" will keep Wikipedia up to date. Thanks in advance for your support.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulinoztas (talk • contribs) 08:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC) 

Please Stop Deleting Content

There is no reason to vandalize pages as you are doing and delete needed info. I know what I am talking about and I am not sure why you feel the need to attempt to delete new pages. This might be funny to you but it isn't to people who actually want to contribute to Wikipedia. Please don't ruin this wonderful website with multitudes of information because you want to have a little fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmbuff1994 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

check and comment

pls check and comment just dont warn me.Paavada (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I have not deleted any content

use ur brain and dont comment during edit conflict, show some patience, dont warn me ever again,Paavada (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)