User talk:Velella

This is Velella's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

adding a new references to "Intelligent laser speckle classification "

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 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pond Life

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Never mind, I found it. All is well. Wes sideman (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll stop looking! Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madurai

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.[reply]

Equator Pure Nature

Dear Velella,

Thank you for reviewing my article "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator_Pure_Nature" 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 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Image placement on Rust

Hello,

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)[reply]

Draft:Mercury Pollution in Canada

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Need guidelines and help regarding tank cleaner

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

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)[reply]

Cydia nigricana

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)[reply]

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

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

Request an article review

Hello, please review my article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zozo_Kahramana Ali.jamal3 (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 discussion

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)[reply]