Fly transparent.gif

adding a new references to "Intelligent laser speckle classification "Edit

I have added some new field and independent references to "Intelligent laser speckle classification " article against its deletion consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orunab (talkcontribs) 01:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This is of little relevance until and unless the conflict of interest issue is addressed.  Velella  Velella Talk   09:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Pond LifeEdit

If that's a book, can you fix the ISBN? I was originally looking to just fix the ISBN because it was invalid, that's when I found out it was a movie. Couldn't find the book. Wes sideman (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The ISBN quoted is that given on the cover of the book (I have an original) so I am unsure what is going wrong. However, I will see if I can find a valid number. It may just because of the age of the book. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   16:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Never mind, I found it. All is well. Wes sideman (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll stop looking!  Velella  Velella Talk   16:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


Hello, Velella. You have new messages at Talk:Madurai#Citation style and volume of citation.
Message added --Bejnar (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Equator Pure NatureEdit

Dear Velella,

Thank you for reviewing my article "" and gave me the feedback. "Nothing here to demonstrate notability. What appear to be reliable sources are interviews or press releases. The whole tone is very advertorial . Draft was moved to mainspace without any reviews. Fails WP:GNG. Very strong likelihood of COI or paid editing Velella Velella Talk 13:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)"

It would be very thankful if you can guide or suggest me more on how improve this article. - Do I need to revise the whole tone of the article and make it less commercial? - on Fails WP:GNG, what should I fix to make it look ok? - Very strong likelihood of COI or paid editing, in this case how to improve this?

I'm look forward to hearing from you. Thank you so much.

Sir Som Tam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Som Tam (talkcontribs) 04:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I very rarely re-visit articles that I have nominated for deletion because it may give the impression of vindictiveness or undue pressure. I prefer that other editors make their own assessment and judgement and I am generally content to accept the consensus verdict at the end of the day. My reading of this article was that it had almost certainly been written by the owner of the company, a significant employee or an agent of the company (marketing agent, advertising agent etc.). This is a conflict of interest and MUST be confirmed on the editor's user-page. Only if this is done, might I be prepared to make further comment.  Velella  Velella Talk   10:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Image placement on RustEdit


Regarding your recent modification of the image placement in the rust page. I don't know what the policy is, but I believe specific information should come first since the expectation of people going to a page is to find something out about the topic of the page. Putting the box (which is not an information box about rust but about about steel in general and I don't think should be there at all because the page is not about steel and none of the steels were mentioned in the page (maybe iron was)) is not immediately helpful. The use of an info box is similar to the table of contents which appears after the intro. In addition, the image that comes up for rust that appears when you hover over a link to the rust page (if you have it enabled) now becomes becomes the generic image for steel. Imagine if every page that was related to steel had the same image at the start. This indeed was the case and I have changed a few of them. So I believe we should put a (nice) rust image at the start and similarly with all pages. Let me know what you think. NeedsGlasses (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Mercury Pollution in CanadaEdit

Hi Velella. I hope all is well. I'm trying to understand why you declined this draft, as it had over a dozen inline references to good sources. Can you tell me more about your reasoning? Best, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

What I wrote was " It is impossible to determine which refs are supposed to substantiate which facts. It is possible that the topic is notable but this cannot be determined in the current state of the Draft article ". I had hoped that was self explanatory. Is it not?  Velella  Velella Talk   22:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi again. I notice you've reverted my move with the edit summary, "clearly not yet ready for main-space . Moved to mainspace by author wothout review." I am not the author of the article, as is obvious from the edit history. I made one edit to the article before moving it, which consisted of removing whitespace.[1]
I read the entire article and your review comment before moving it. Your review comment would make sense in a draft that had zero inline citations. It does not make sense in an article with over a dozen inline citations. W.r.t. your comments on my Talk page, I understand that there are quality issues with this article. I get that, but the bar we have at AfC is supposed to be equivalent to the bar we have at AfD, which allows for some quality issues for notable topics.
Regarding your assertion on my Talk page that I "subvert[ed] the normal review process on Wikipedia", we have two normal review processes: AfC and NPP. Articles moved from Draft to mainspace go through the second review process. AfC is an optional process; nothing is being subverted when someone other than an AfC Reviewer moves a draft out of Draft space.
A pattern that I see over and over again at Wikipedia is that Start-class drafts written by new editors get declined at AfC with a weak explanation, the original editor is long gone, nobody works on the draft, and six months later we lose both a draft and a new editor. The instructions for AfC reviewers say, "Article submissions that are likely to survive an AfD nomination should be accepted and published to mainspace." Do you believe this article isn't likely to survive an AfD nomination? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
If it was in mainspace I would support an AfD as it stands. I believe that the draft both could and should be rescued, but it needs much work.  Velella  Velella Talk   23:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
If you're willing to work on it to bring it up to your standards, that would be awesome. Or if you can think of more comprehensive review comments, that would be helpful, because you seem to want more than just more references but your review comment only talks about references. There's no rush to publish this draft but I also don't want it to end up as a G13. If in six months I see it headed for deletion via G13, I'll probably move it to mainspace so that it at least has a chance to go through AfD. Honestly, I've seen much worse articles recently survive AfD. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Need guidelines and help regarding tank cleanerEdit

i am new user on wikipedia and i need help regarding tank cleaner article — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParvinderWraich (talkcontribs) 13:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Not so new I think. You have been told 5 times so far that you need to declare your conflict of interest and you have failed to do so. Unless you refrain from editing articles where you have a financial or other interests you are likely to be blocked and all articles that you have created or substantially edited may be nominated for deletion. Please read your talk page and take the appropriate actions.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Cydia nigricanaEdit

Greetings Velella You may well be right about the copyright of text on this page relating to the biology of this species which does seem to be a copy but please don't remove the description text from Meyrick which is well out of copyright as indicated in the references. Best regards Notafly (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll see what can be legally salvaged. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   17:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Very many thanks.Notafly (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Request an article reviewEdit

Hello, please review my article Ali.jamal3 (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I review articles taken from the general article pool. I do not select specific articles for review nor do I review on request. Had I reviewed the article, it would have been rejected as not notable. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk  

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussionEdit

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. JerryUSAUSAUSA (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, that went well didn't it? I am not impressed by bullying and harassment tactics and shouting edit summaries. Try checking out my talk page archives before trying this again. Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair![2]  Velella  Velella Talk   10:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Please remove the noticeEdit

@Velella, I and a reviewer have changed this please remove notice of speedy deletion from Draft:Emiway Bantai (Indian rapper). Please have a look again. expect you. (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I came, I saw, I was unimpressed. You mean that an experienced editor removed substantial chunks of your text because of poor sourcing - and you ask me to remove my notice? Why exactly ?  Velella  Velella Talk   17:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Velella, Once you review the draft - however you feel that it should be removed, then you can remove it. If the article has been deleted before, it does not mean that it is still not notable. I said earlier that I expected you. (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

You expected me? You expected me to do what? I don't understand.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Velella, Do not disappoint me 🙏. Your every reply is breaking my expectation. Please. (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the speedy deletion template, not because of your request but because it is a salted title so an admin will have to be involved before further action is taken  Velella  Velella Talk   23:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Velella, You have made a reasonable decision, because the speedy delete was not right. 😊 (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Rejected Article: Witness CollectionEdit

Hello Velella,

On 24 February you rejected my submission on Witness Collection.[1] In your explanation, you wrote: "The first three sources, included in the lede, which should establish notability are very far from independent, originating from the owner/curator of the collection. The many remaining refs do not provide the evidence of notability required. If this collection is this important, there really ought to be significant independent coverage, but it isn't here."

I think you are entirely mistaken. The first three sources mentioned in the article are from Sophie's Art Tour - an art tour agency based in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City - the National University of Singapore, and Art Asia Pacific consecutively. While notable institutions, none of these have any direct relation to the collection and certainly not "originating from the owner/curator of the collection." They do, however, feature Witness Collection, thereby providing evidence of its notoriety.

There are a following 41 references that include books and articles published by houses, museums and institutions around the world, all mentioning the collection by name or featuring art part of the collection.

Based on your inaccurate response, I would like you to reconsider your decision to reject the submission. Unless you provide further details on why you rejected it, I see no reason to re-submit it as is.

Many thanks,

Springding (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

As a matter of course, I do not revisit previous AFC reviews. It is much better to have an independent view on the merits or de-merits of the sources.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding external Links and Not spammingEdit

Hi, Please tell me, what did I violate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajansingh99 (talkcontribs) 14:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

What you were doing is link spamming. Adding a promotional link, sometimes embedded in anodyne text but all just to promote a website and its products and promoters. And you know that, so why ask.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't promote the article as it did not have any affiliate links. And I just tried to update that 'Xiaomi Product list'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajansingh99 (talkcontribs) 11:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Warning IssuesEdit

Hi, Why I'm being warned. I edited 'List of Xiaomi Products' yesterday. I got your warning that I'm spamming the article. Please recheck again, the article 'list of Xiaomi Products' is not updated. I just tried to update it for the community.

Rajansingh99 (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Rajan

Rajansingh99 - Yes it it. It is link spam - anodyne text including a spam link which, yet again, is to oyprice - quelle surprise! Keep on with this and you are likely to be blocked.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:54, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


Hi, it appears that you tried to create a redirect at 19 Camelopardalis, but didn't do it correctly. I've fixed it now. For future reference, the correct redirect syntax is:

#REDIRECT [[target page name]]

You can check redirects with the Preview button before saving them. If you have created a working redirect, the preview will show the name of the target page alongside a bent arrow (or "Redirect to:" label in text mode). — Smjg (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect a typo (thumb hitting the space bar in error). Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   16:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Edits to [[Chemical Safety]]Edit

Thanks for your comments on my students talk page, but please do not hesitate to undo changes. The students were informed on how to edit pages, and how to move work out of their sandbox and this student clearly did not follow the instructions. Over the next three weeks we will be reviewing and monitoring their edits, and having their changes undone is a part of the process. --Drglheard (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I like many editors here, was once a student and reacting to constructive criticism is not always easy at that age! I was hoping that they might revisit the article and revise their changes and , hopefully, feel good about working to a consensus. I will keep an eye on the article and revise as necessary if nothing else happens. Thanks for the explanation.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
No worries! I appreciate you keeping an eye on things. Honestly I think that article should be merged with Laboratory_safety. --Drglheard (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Drglheard - This conversation should probably be taking place at the article talk page - but that might just give the students a heads up! There has been a past proposal to merge which failed. I would oppose that in any case. I have been professionally and operationally involved in dealing with a spill of 20 tonnes of liquid oxygen into a small stream (hundreds of very brittle common eels) , an environmental spill of a small quantity of mercaptan (staff still smelling weeks later), organised a real-time emergency exercise of a large scale liquid chlorine spillage (several virtual deaths), finding a warehouse full of aluminium dross and waste flux evolving a toxic concentration of ammonia gas and busting spontaneously into flame from rain falling through a hole in the roof, amongst many more. Chemical safety is a very big issue in industry and transport, and it rather puts the laboratory issue in the shade. When I saw that student editor was going to be involved, I hoped that maybe if that student was bright and imaginative , they would see the great potential of the subject. So far it has been a bit mechanistic and inward looking. It would be great, if, with encouragement, the view was outwards and imaginative. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   23:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chemical safety, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NFPA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Chemical safetyEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Chemical safety 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
"The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar may be awarded to those who have prevented Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes, or who have defended Wikipedia against threats not covered by other barnstars."

This BARNSTAR is awarded to user sir Velella.

Your edits on Nightingale College, defending against probable WP:COI and WP:ADVERT WP:sockpuppets is incredibly admirable. Infinitepeace (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Can I ask a small favor sir? The webpage has been completely and totally whitewashed with no criticism of the college allowed. Can you take a minute to look at this page please? Thank you. Infinitepeace (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I will wait till all the current brouhaha is finished and then try and ensure a more balanced picture. Memories and editors' staiying power on Wikipedia can be short.  Velella  Velella Talk   08:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

:| 😤Edit

I already said that my article is different from the screenplay article! What do you not understand??? I decline to improve on screenplay article. 😤😤😤 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FaarizPlayz (talkcontribs) 04:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Without a link or a diff, it is difficult to know what you would like me to look at. Thanks  Velella  Velella Talk   07:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
FP asked and answered at Teahouse. This was about a Declined, then Deleted draft. David notMD (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks David notMD. My mind reading skills have declined over the years!  Velella  Velella Talk   21:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


Hi Velella, Thank you for your comments on my talk page. My goal was to clear out old discussion posts (from years back) on various pages, and now I figured out how to archive instead of just deleting discussions at my own discretion. I am going back and fixing everything and establishing archives for that handful of sites I was working on. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. TNstingray (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Changes you made on article Bong CooEdit

Hi I understand that accomplished that is not the same as decorated. She was called most bemadalled, decorated maybe just in this wikipedia article but this latest write up about her says what it was before the revert It's all the same to me, I'm just clearing some bowler articles. Thanks

Palakasan (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Helmet jellyfish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ephyra.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5Edit

Hello, Velella. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Chemical safety.
Message added 10:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


Thanks for your recent report at WP:UAA. Although I have now blocked this account, in future it's best to wait until an account with an offensive username actually edits, or gets caught by the filters, as many are automatically created and are never active, or are simply created for sheer fun. (Personally, I would like to see every deeply offensive username completely removed from the list of user accounts - especially if they've never edited - but sadly this isn't how Wikipedia seems to want to operate. You'd be amazed, for example, by how many accounts there are with 'Nigger' in the title that have never edited. Thankfully, all have been blocked. I see no reason for them to remain, and they only bring shame on Wikipedia, and a slight snigger on the faces of those who created them. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Nick Moyes - you are right of course, but sometimes, just sometimes, when some silly little prat thinks he (and I suspect nearly always a he) can make a mildly obscene addition to Wikipedia though a username, it just seems to need some redress. A note on the talk page acknowledges that someone has seen it. A silent block just neutralises it. Most of these, you may be glad to hear I just let pass me by.  Velella  Velella Talk   08:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


Hi, I see you removed a bunch of links to, calling it "link spam". I reverted you in cases where the site was cited as a reference. A site being widely cited is not in itself evidence of link spam. The IP user who seems to have gotten you started on this wasn't spamming this site; he or she was replacing references to the dead site with references to the same material now hosted at This is actually the right action when cited material has been moved.--Srleffler (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Srleffler - Although I didn't look at all the references, many of those that I did look at were simply parroting Wikipedia itself or had copy and paste text from other much more reliable sites and then marking the page as copyright with no acknowledgement of the source. Although I don't see any advertisements as my router blocks them all, it appeared to be a site that attracted visitors in order to sell them stuff and add advertising. I couldn't find a single occasion when the site had valuable content that was not stolen/ borrowed from elsewhere. On that basis I believe it to be a total spam site.  Velella  Velella Talk   08:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Velella: Thanks for the reply. I accept that argument. I didn't see any ads when I looked at the site, but like you they were being blocked. --Srleffler (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if either of you are interested, but I opened a discussion at, as I think this site should only be used as source for itself/author/book where self-published information would be appropriate.Shajure (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks for that useful intervention Shajure . I have commented there.  Velella  Velella Talk   18:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

regarding the averagesEdit

Hi Levantio, thank you for asking. FYI, I wanted to add page numbers, but I was not able to do so because I didn't know how to do it. Please refer to pg.18 for entering averages for UTSG, UTSC, and UTM. User:Covermila

I am not Levantio, and I have no idea what this message is about.  Velella  Velella Talk   07:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


see here:

I see it, and the point is....? It would also have been useful to have an edit summary explaining whatever it is that warrants such exclusion.  Velella  Velella Talk   11:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Mestolobes droseropaEdit

In your edit summary for reverting my PROD you said this: "There is a presumption in favour of retention of species articles provided that they are valid spp. This is." However I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean by this. I"m not going to re-PROD the article as the rules prevent me from doing so, however I would at least like to know what you mean by that so I can try and figure out what the page needs. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Blaze The Wolf#top - What I said in full was "all evidence points towards this being a valid species. Most Hawaiian moths are endemic and this is no exception. There is a presumption in favour of retention of species articles provided that they are valid spp. This is" - and clearly I either lost consciousness before completing the sentence or I pressed the enter key in error. However, there has been widespread acceptance and consensus over the years that articles about organisms who names are accepted by the appropriate taxonomical expert bodies and have a reference to demonstrate that they are a valid species, will be entitled to retain an article. If challenged, I would agree than many such articles are barren of information and their very reason for existence must be questionable but that is the nature of consensus. I guess the only way forward is to improve them. I am aware that some editors produced vast numbers of these one-liner articles, possibly to boost their edit count but it is hardly a useful exercise. I understood the reasoning behind the PROD and had significant sympathy with the motive, but consensus must hold sway. If you were to ask me to point to the discussion, I couldn't, but I am sure that there are appropriate experts around who can direct you.  Velella  Velella Talk   20:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah ok. I was unaware of the consensus existing, otherwise I wouldn't have performed the PROD. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Care of Terracotta PotsEdit


I am not sure why my suggestion was rejected, I wanted to contribute to the wikipedia community and wanted to share my experiences, hence I tried to follow the rules to add the citation where it was collected from. I have personally followed these tips, and I believe all the users can conserve their pots and help our nature by following and respecting our mother earth.

Many Thanks for your understanding, and I apologise if I broke any rule; I only wanted to contribute. may I request you to kindly review my suggestion, and trust you will judge for the best.

Have a great day.


Ginamiles - Your first edit was to Container garden which was the addition of a significant quantity of text referenced to a commercial supplier of terracotta goods in Pakistan. Doing this is termed link spam on Wikipedia - adding text with a spam reference embedded in it. This practice is very strongly deprecated and, if you were to persist in doing it, you would be blocked.
In this first edit you included the link as an in-line URL in the header. In-line URLs are not acceptable in Wikipedia and certainly not in a header. Your second edit was to add the same spam link into the "External links" section. Your third edit was again the insertion of the same spam link into Terracotta.
Going back to your first edit, most, if not all the text, was a direct copy from the web-site being spammed. This was a direct copyright violation. Wikipedia takes the issue of copyright violation very seriously, and again repeated violations will result in a block. On a less serious note, please always sign posts on talk pages using your signature which is produced by adding four tildes.  Velella  Velella Talk   16:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

In reference to your comment on "Intelligence Node Draft"Edit

I have changed our intro lines as per your feedback Also I would like to bring to your attention that we have followed all notability guidelines issued by wikipedia. The information mentioned can be verified from reliable sources such as The Economic Times ( which as per wikipedia itself, "As of 2012, it is the world's second-most widely read English-language business newspaper, after The Wall Street Journal") & TechCrunch ( according to wikipedia "TechCrunch is an American online newspaper focusing on high tech and startup companies.") and have several other reliable sources. We believe we have followed all notability rules of wikipedia. Please review it again and share your feedback. TullikaInode1 (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

TullikaInode1 - I am confused. Can you please explain the several references to "we" above and elsewhere. Who exactly is "we". As for reviewing it again, like all Wikipedia editors I am a volunteer here and chose to review articles exactly when and if I choose, and certainly not at the behest of a marketing department. For what little it may be worth, I would expend much more effort in reviewing an article by an editor who has shown wide range commitment across Wikipedia and hasn't just arrived to promote one particular company.  Velella  Velella Talk   11:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I am editing wiki articles from last 4-5 years and I work for Intelligence Node. I have mentioned that on my talk page as well . However the information provided is completely verifiable and published in renowned sources. Is it mandatory that an editor who is not working in the organization should create a page . If that is the case so I would request editors to do that. I think the service it provides the work it does if fulfils the notability guidelines and deserves to have a wiki page as it is one of few organizations providing the service it provides. TullikaInode1 (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I repeat, please confirm what is meant by "we", otherwise this conversation is stalled.  Velella  Velella Talk   16:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and you might also like to confirm the username you were using for all this long history of editing. Your first edit with this user-name was on the 10 May 2021 with the creation of this contentious Draft article.  Velella  Velella Talk   16:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, None of the reference is paid . Do you mean to say Economic times, Techcrunch, WWD which are leader in their segment will charge amount and promote companies like that. This is a very biased judgement. , . These companies have also added news references . How are they different then . Aren't they doing paid promotion? How are you so sure that these references are not paid. If wikipedia doesn't support news reference then why are they giving preference to add online news in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TullikaInode1 (talkcontribs) 17:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
TullikaInode1 - This conversation is going nowhere until you truthfully address the questions posed above.  Velella  Velella Talk   18:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Subjects of "This is Your Life" TV series has been nominated for discussionEdit


Category:Subjects of "This is Your Life" TV series has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Graham87 11:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I have raised my objection to this.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Velella. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Talgarth stationEdit

Hi I am RailwayJG and I couldn't help but notice you redirected the page Talgarth railway station to Talgarth. I wanted to let you know I have removed the revert and readded the station as the station is notable enough to stand on its own and all the info about it just clogs up the history page of the town. Plus it is not formal to just add it to the town if someone is researching the line and wants to find each station and they instead of having an article to locate the station. They end up needing to use google maps and town references to find it. I have readded it so please do not revert it. If you oppose it please put it on the talk page and not just remove it. All the articles are notable to stand alone and Talgarth station is no exception to this or different. Any issues please put on the talk page...regards RailwayJG (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Umm .... this was in 2019 when there was no evidence at all that "...someone was researching the line".  Velella  Velella Talk   22:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
it doesn't matter if it was in 2019, I have readded it. It has enough clarity to stand alone as an article. As said if you object to this, please add to the talk page. Not remove is all i have asked...and there is evidence enough of it that is all I am going to add. Any issues please add to the talk page. RailwayJG (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft: MarvinEdit

Thanks for reviewing my stub-like first draft. I’ve added a lot more material and references:

My edits and small number of articles over the years have been on noncontroversial topics, so I haven’t created an anonymous username. Just wanted to mention that.

I love Wikipedia and use it a lot in my work as an editor!

I really was puzzled as to why there was no entry on this major employer in my native state of Minnesota. It gets mentioned regularly in the news. Bill (talk) 09:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I saw in another post that you don’t revisit rejected articles. I’ll go to Teahouse perhaps and post there. Bill (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Mail NoticeEdit

Hello, Velella. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Celestina007 (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination DriveEdit

Hello Velella:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 2700 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021Edit

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Velella,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog driveEdit

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
  • On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 01:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Boiling point and boilingEdit

You should take into account of the hydrostatic pressure if you want to have an exact meaning of the boiling. The bubbles are created in the liquid also, not only on the surface of the liquid.VPaarma (talk) 07:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)VPaarma

Maybe so, but it still needs a robust reference to be used here.  Velella  Velella Talk   09:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
There is more information of the hydrostatic pressure on the Wikipedia (Hydrostatics/Hydrostatic pressure). This page could be used as a link for more exact definition of the boiling. The hydrostatic pressure becomes more important if the surrounding pressure decreases.VPaarma (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

A brownie for you!Edit

  :) Whatevergirls (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:National Service and Tracking of Electronic ProcessEdit

Please tell me issues in this draft. I will address it.1друг (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

1друг - The principal reason is that there is no evidence of notability. It does not meet the criteria outline in WP:SIRS in having multiple reliable and independent sources discussing the topic in depth.
Most of the sources provided are directly from the relevant judicial department including the first two which are simply the user manual and a notice from the Supreme Court of India. The reference from "The Print" is clearly labelled as also coming from an internal source. The ref from "The Hindi" merely makes general observations about the need for a better process. The "New Indian Express" mentions it as offering a potential solution and the "live Law" (in Hindi) ref simply talks about an inauguration of the system ("Supreme Court e-Committee Chairman and Judge Justice D.Y. Chandrachud on Monday e-inaugurated the Secure Wi-Fi Project and Implementation of CIS Software with Land Records and National Service for National Service and District Judiciary and Electronic Process Tracking (NSTEP) in the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday.").
This is not unusual. Very few proprietary IT systems are found to be notable simply because the systems themselves are designed as back-office processes with app front ends which do the work without much fuss. It would need several reliable sources discussing the system in some detail - i.e articles about the system rather than passing mentions - to be considered for notability.
I hope that this helps.  Velella  Velella Talk   00:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

--New india 2020 (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I will figure out the sources for it, if I am getting. Else look for other prominent draft.1друг (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I am not getting the source you want. Can you check if any ? Else the draft will get waste. I will write if getting the right source. 1друг (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
1друг - I have spent some considerable time reviewing this Draft (which has appeared under different names at different times) and, as a reviewer, I too have searched for sources to try and see if there is evidence of notability. I found none. As noted above, proprietary software like this is very rarely deemed to be notable and I strongly suggest that this is a lost cause. Sorry.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Joyous SeasonEdit

Nomination of Dara Fanka for deletionEdit

A discussion is taking place to determine if the article Dara Fanka is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You nominated this article for deletion in 2016. Somehow it survived. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Auto archivingEdit

Hi, Velella. Your talk page has ClueBot III. But you have archived old talks in User space manually. Using the template User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis generated many indices such that User:ClueBot III/Detailed Indices/User talk:Velella/Archive 13, User:ClueBot III/Detailed Indices/User:Velella/Archives/Archive 13. How about arranging them? Sawol (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

No, why not just ask?Edit

Okay, I changed the wikipedia page on Florence, okay I didn't add a "Reliable" source. But you couldn't ask for one, instead of deleting all my work. also, my source was Mystery of history VOLUME III, by Linda Hobar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

copyright violation and the right way to quoteEdit

Hello, many many thanks for reviewing my first article for submission. I see your point regarding the subject and would like to learn the right way to do cite sources. I thought that adding numbered footnotes was the way to go, how do you suggest me to do it? Many thanks again for your time and consideration, Silvia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvia Dalle Montagne (talkcontribs) 11:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Silvia Dalle Montagne - just a couple of routine issues first. Please always sign your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of any comment on a talk page. This inserts your signature and identifies who is commenting. Secondly, please always put a link into any page to which you need to make reference - in this case Draft:Luca Formentini so that other editors can quickly find the relevant page without searching for it.
With regard to your draft, I wasn't commenting on the suitability or otherwise of the draft nor on the referencing. The serious issue appears to be that significant chunks have been directly copied from other sites. This is copyright violation which Wikipedia takes very seriously. All material that has been copied from elsewhere must be removed urgently. Failing to remove copyright violation test may lead you your account being blocked and your contributions being deleted. Please review your draft urgently and remove all copied material. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   11:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

thank you so much for teaching these impoertant basics! I did my best to edit the sentence keeping the sense without copying the content, I hope this reads well now.Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Silvia Dalle Montagne - you what? Nothing or any significance has changed. Either remove the copyright violation or risk being blocked. If you are unsure what it is, it is the text that you directly copied from one of your sources.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

dear Velella, I edited the content before it was erased. However, I would like to ask for your help to understand what makes the 5th line on the Biography section of this [1] compliant to the Wikipedia requirements. I'm having some issues to balance wiki need to cite unbiased sources without copying them and making a reference to the source. Many thanks again. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The layout of a page is different on different platforms. Can you quote the start of the line that you wish me to look-at please?  Velella  Velella Talk   20:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

KECO proposed deletionEdit


I don't edit much these days and I'm not in a position to improve this article unfortunately. For now I just want to explain that this case probably appeared in a textbook, that is true for many articles like this on old cases. And the court of claims is an important court.

Legal wikipedians really appreciate having articles like this, I think our barometer for noteworthiness in court cases is more sensitive than the non legal readership.

On that basis I hope you feel comfortable removing the notice. If not, and if you create a deletion page, I'll say more there. (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I have worked in the legal environment all my life and I understand the significance of case law, both in the US and elsewhere. However, I do not accept the premise that legal articles are subject to any less rigorous test of notability than is applied to all other articles. This case may feature in text books but that is not a valid test of notability. Notability requires several independent and reliable sources to discuss the topic. I could not find such RSs. I am therefore content that my judgment in tagging this article was justified. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   22:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I really think you misunderstand what I'm saying. Of course there is a single and uniform for standard notability. But if you're a lawyer you can get on Westlaw and you can see it's discussed in 98 secondary sources. You were right to tag the article but I think this is sufficient info to untag. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 06:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Minor barnstar
For helping to cut down on a disambiguation link backlog. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! I thought I ought to try and clean up after me as best I could. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   20:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper NewsEdit

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

  • AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
  • The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Prod of William Hawkins (died c. 1554)Edit

Why did you prod the above article I created? The text was copied from the public domain Dictionary of National Biography, and I acknowledged that with a PD-notice. As far as I can see, that doesn't constitute plagiarism per wiki's guidelines (1) Ficaia (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The use of a PROD rather than any other deletion process is to allow anyone to remove that PROD without any sanction, which you have done. It does concern me that Wikipedia does appear to permit such whole-sale copying of out of copyright sources and I am giving thought to rasing this issue in an appropriate forum. I should also confirm that I hadn't seen that guidance before and I am grateful for your drawing my attention to it. However, I still have concerns about the notability of this article. It is very lightly sourced and the lede statement that he was "first Englishman to sail to Brazil" doesn't appear in the body - merely that he went to Brazil. The requirements that notability should be satisfied is equally relevant whatever the article and I am not yet convinced with this article. It remains on my watch list.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
A PROD should only be used for "uncontroversial deletion" (1). If you doubt the subject's notability, you should AfD the article, but IMO opinion the subject clearly performed notable actions: voyages to Guinea and Brazil and the capture of a native chief. Ficaia (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
The option of an AfD remains for consideration.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
If your concerns about plagiarism were to become wiki policy, hundreds if not thousands of articles on minor historical figures would be purged from wikipedia. Such an outcome would amount to vandalism IMO. Ficaia (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
No. That doesn't follow. Many of us spend long and tedious hours scraping information from new and old sources and quoting those sources to put together articles that are accurate and fair and are based on reliable witness. That is as true of historical figures as it is of more modern figures. However, this is all purely speculative. It is a matter that I am pondering. I believe that I could have written a sound article on William Hawkins with neither copy and pasting nor close paraphrasing, but I would have been greatly concerned about the sparsity of the sources and even their inability to demonstrate notability.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Elena YerevanEdit

Hello, Velella,

After you move an article to Draft space, it would help if you tagged the original title for speedy deletion, CSD R2. It helps admins patrolling speedy deletion categories see them and take care of them as it places the page in one of the CSD categories. Thank you for your help! Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Liz-Thanks for your note. It had been my practice for several years to nominate redirect relics from moves to Draft to CSD until I received a rather peremptory note from an admin admonishing me for tagging the re-directs and insisting that bots were more than capable of fixing the issue. After that I stopped. If I can find the conversation in one of my archives I will provide a link. Since then I have assumed that the bots were in charge. Clearly not. I am more than happy to resume my previous practice in future. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   09:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Prashant KarulkarEdit

Hello Velella, Thank you for your valuable feedback on the Article - Prashant Karulkar One of my articles which has been reviewed by you is not published, I believe it needs some more relevancy and reliable sources to get published, However, I would request you to kindly review the supporting articles (Links) which are added as references in the draft as they give the clarity about the subject, also the sources are reliable as the links are from leading newspapers and renowned publications. Still, if those do not meet the standards then what kind of Independent source should be referred to make it effective. Also, please provide some assistance which would help me to make the article more reliable which can get published. Your guidance would really prove as an extreme help. I am open to learning about the errors and fixing them as per the requirements. An.xtrovert (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC).an.xtrovert

It is usual and courteous to provide a link to the article being discussed. I assume that you mean Draft:Prashant Karulkar. I am not sure that I can add anything to the comments I wrote at the draft review. The article lacks independent and reliable sources that discuss the subject. Sources that merely say he won this award or was presented to his person add absolutely nothing to notability. Interviews with the individual are similarly not useful since they are not independent. I am sure that he is a good guy, but just being a good guy doesn't justify a Wikipedia article.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Article ReviewEdit

Help me to review these articles: Inikiri Bernard market and draft: Inikiri Umuezeoka Topsy4men (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I have already reviewed both articles on several occasions and found them to be wholly lacking reliable sources to such an extent that I doubt their notability. I have recommended that one of them is deleted and the other should be in draft for improvement. Your persistent removal of maintenance tags and other disruptive editing is likely to lead to a block from editing.  Velella  Velella Talk   07:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Shah Emtiaj ArticleEdit

Hi @Velella, How do I improve Shah Emtiaj article? Please Help!Ueteach (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

By adding reliable sources that discuss the subject of the article. I have made searches and I can find nothing reliable and it is my belief that this person is not notable. If sources are not forthcoming, I am proposing to moninate the article for deletion. Please read WP:GNG for further guidance on notability as Wikipedia understands it. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   23:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Traffic lightsEdit

When you edit the page "Traffic lights" again, mention "yellow" more than "amber" and probably add a new section talking about flashing green lights. 2601:C6:C580:6B20:A097:5370:87C7:8A45 (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Structure of Microscopic Scale ArticleEdit

Hi Vellela, thank you for editing my contributions to .

I'm developing the Microscopic scale page as a project for a university course, so any and all feedback is appreciated. I'm mainly here to ask the purpose behind putting the "history and 2 examples first" as you have stated in the edit. That is the way the page was before I edited it, although I changed the structure according to the WikiProject Science suggestion for "Scientific object/concept".

Is there a formal reason for your changing this back? As I would like to know if there are other resources and guidelines I need to look at before continuing to edit this page.

Thank you in advance. Sleepymochi (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Probably because those same guidance notes start with It has been proposed by members of this project that the first part of article be targeted to the general public. Thus the opening sections should make the subject easily explicable to the public and then follow that with the more scientific sections. In this case the phrase "Microscopic scale" are in common use outside of science so this isn't an exclusively scientific topic. It is also the case that by common convention, long established article structures are not radically altered unless they are either obviously wrong or there is a sound consensus for change following a discussion on the article talk page. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   05:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Help with ReferencingEdit

Hello Velella,

I was wondering if you could please help me understand the referencing issues you alluded to on my article/draft Jessica Corr ? I was talking back and forth with two other experienced users after they had made comments and I implemented everything that was brought up to the best of my ability, informed them that I have made changes in case they can take look and give more feedback, then submitted the article and didn't hear back for days. SleepyWhippet (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

SleepyWhippet- You have had discussions with other editors who have bent over backwards to try and be encouraging and helpful. However, each Draft article submitted for review is judged against the notability requirements agreed by Wikipedia. It is those standards that you should be aiming to satisfy. Essentially, to demonstrate notability there must be multiple independent and reliable sources that discuss the subject - not just mentions. The need for reliability excludes self-made web-sites (Squarespace, Webpress etc) and all blogs. The requirement for independence also excludes all interviews, re-prints of press releases and adulatory pieces that have originated with the subject or their agents. In writing an article, it is critical that you identify why you believe that the subject is notable and then provide multiple independent and reliable sources for that specific issue. All the other stuff will need sourcing but unless a reviewer can see where notability is supposed to lie, approval is unlikely. I got involved in this because you decided to approve your own article and moved it directly from Draft into Mainspace. This is always a bad idea. It sets alarm bells ringing and you may find several other editors paying close attention to your work. You did the same to Faye Toogood so it can't have been a slip of the keyboard. In general, if you bend the rules, people will be looking closely at your work to ensure it meets the expected standards.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
@VelellaThanks for your response. Firstly, If you are referencing my post in wikipedia Teahouse about feeling closely watched, that had taken place way before I moved these articles and it's not about you. I do want to learn and I don't mind people looking at my work and pointing things out, in fact as you have said, I personally sought it out -- tho I'm not so sure about your conceit of others "bending over backwards" to help me -- unless I'm mistaken, we are all here to try to contribute information to wikipedia, I am taking precious time out of my own life to do so, I don't gain anything from this in any shape or form, and I assume whoever is that senior here actually cares about Wikipedia and its content. So I had assumed that it's a shared cause rather than a burden, but perhaps not.
I happen to have very deep knowledge about design, architecture, art... and people from that world, with access to a large design archive when I can pull print references. If anything, my trying to impart some of it here is more of a gift that I'm trying to give to wikipedia than anything else. Another thing I have quickly noticed is blatant gender based disparities here, and I have been trying to contribute in a way that fixes that imbalance. Yes, I did move both articles, because I had written them with two different strategies: One quite short as a stub that can be improved upon later, and the other as a longer more in depth article, where I have read multiple sources, and I am drawing on the content from them and reordering the sequence of information to be completely original. They both got denied. And then when I tried to fix the issues that were brought up and resubmitted them, they got ignored. So that leaves me with only one choice for getting any kind of response/guidance from the larger community; move them.
But I guess the larger pattern that's emerging for me is that we just have an impossible threshold for female designers on this platform. In trying to write these to articles I came across Steven Burke's for instance.., who'd be considered a contemporary of these two subjects and who in fact used to write about them in leading industry publications in early 2000's -- somehow he seems to have qualified with only 5 citations in much less well known publications, and they don't. So riddle me that. SleepyWhippet (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
No, there is no impossible threshold for female designers. In the current atmosphere I would guess that , if anything, most reviewers would look a little more benignly on a female subject, that is if they took any notice at all. To suggest otherwise is a breach of WP:AGF and is disingenuous. Secondly, I am not referring to anything at the Teahouse. I routinely patrol new changes and if I see an editor moving a draft to mainspace and they don't have article reviewer permissions, then I take a close look at their contributions and the notability of their articles. However, I still tend to assume good faith so I only rarely nominate such articles to AFD preferring to Draftify them so that multiple independent and reliable sources can be found as required by WP:GNG. For the record, very few sources that include an interview with the subject or are directly quoting from them can be regraded as independent since the subject is directly involved in the source. It may be worth noting that being an expert is no passport to having articles accepted. There are very many experts on Wikipedia but the successful ones rely on finding good quality sources to support their assertions. Their expertise is useful for identifying junk and falsehoods in articles but not for establishing notability. Regarding other poor articles - sure there are many - please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that doesn't justify yet another poorly sourced article.  Velella  Velella Talk   11:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
@Velella I think your point about being an expert in a field not necessarily making for a successful contribution on wikipedia is clearly very true, and I guess it's for each of us to decide whose loss that ends up being. But what is also abundantly clear is that some knowledge of a particular field is necessary to at least understand and know what to look for in judging notability. You keep referencing interviews being cited, which entirely misses the point of why this person is being interviewed in the first place (hint: read the headlines, the pre-ambles, and everything else that said about the subject around the interview). If Wikipedia needs direct references for every fact that's mentioned in an article, then sometimes it inevitably has to come directly from the subject's mouth, it's their life at the end of the day. But even that is completely besides the point now: By now, the citations have grown to include a multitude of permanent collections at important institutions, and there's a monograph by a leading arts publisher. If you still struggle to see the notability, then I'd suggest you check yourself against WP:AFG. SleepyWhippet (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022Edit

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello Velella,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 739 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 1031 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

First time submission - what do you think?Edit

Hi Velella,

I'm a first-timer at submitting an article and was hoping you might be able to review and point out any issues or reasons in may not be published?

It's here:

Really appreciate your time!

Rafffan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafffan (talkcontribs) 15:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Another editor has already reviewed it. For the record I don't do reviews on request because that is unfair to those who have been in the queue a long time.  Velella  Velella Talk   15:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, they'd literally just reviewed, which is amazing - thanks for your time to look and respond though.
And appreciate there's a queue. I'm simply trying to understand what makes for a good article and am thirsty for any support from those with the most experience. Rafffan (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Why the fly?
Please do not bite the newcomers @Velella Rafffan (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curatedEdit

Hi, I'm Styyx. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Trams in Ostrava, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

~StyyxTalk? 05:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Velella. I see that you've accepted this article from draft. Despite being in a better state than before, the majority of text still lacks sourcing. Only two sentences in the whole history section are sourced, which is a bit too much, and I personally wouldn't have accepted it. I'm going to try and look for sources later this day and add them to the article or remove the text if I can't find anything (likely to be the latter since I don't know Czech), and I believe it should stay unreviewed until that point. Thanks. ~StyyxTalk? 05:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Styyx - I don't have a great problem with that. I was getting seriously concerned that nearly all the reviews I was doing ended in rejection. On this occasion, my own searches demonstrated that sources were out there, the content corresponded with the sources that were available and the content was mind-numbingly uncontentious. Most (all?) metropolitan area with tram services can support an article and this appeared to be no different. However, as noted at the start, I have no special affection for the article, draft or not. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   07:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Ngl, the fly made me shit myself. xD ~StyyxTalk? 14:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Clearing things upEdit

I removed your message because I like to keep my page empty-ish because I find it hard to keep track due to my dyslexia and it helps me keep track of relevant information pertaining to myself, nothing personal.. as for the person in question, I am he.. however, I understand that some of my edits were in the wrong and it took a little while for me to understand that, I want to make a difference on wiki and contribute what I'm able to, we're not all perfect and this is why it's important for editors to learn from their mistakes, Iv'e taken what you said and I will be very careful from now on, all the best, feel free to delete this after you read it. Hogyncymru (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hogyncymru - Thanks for that. I hear what you say and I hope that I understand. There is no animosity, and I certainly have no grudge on my part. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   22:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Filter bankEdit

Please improve the language. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

That is not a subject I know enough about, so I am unable to improve it.  Velella  Velella Talk   11:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022Edit

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Velella,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000[a] at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.[b]

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here.   Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.


There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

>NPP backlog: 10528 as of 18:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
  1. ^ not including another ~6,000 redirects
  2. ^ The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


Have you met any people born in Africa who live in the United Kingdom? If so, which countries were they born in? AmericanEditor350 (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

What relevance does that have to anything?  Velella  Velella Talk   18:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!Edit

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


Hello, I wonder if I could ask you about this edit? I regularly come across such pages, which are just reams and reams of information about characters from some anime/computer game/book series. If they are unsourced, is it legit to just blank and redirect to the parent page? Isn't the "source" the original material, similar to a plot synopsis on a film page? Hoping you are right as it would make my work easier! Jdcooper (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Eg: List of Kamen Rider Build characters, List of Juken Sentai Gekiranger characters, List of Spawn characters, for reference. Jdcooper (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Jdcooper - I take the view that the Wikipedia rules , agreed by consensus, apply to all articles and that sourcing is an absolute prerequisite. I initially tagged the article for speedy deletion as unsourced but changed it to a redirect a few minutes later. In general such articles are unneccesary forks from the original and I take the view that the content is unencyclopaedic.Over the years I have probably changed about a dozen such articles into redirects with very little push-back, but I don't go looking for them. In most cases, the parent article is, itself, very poorly sourced with few if any independent and reliable sources. Hope that that helps. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   07:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)