User talk:Velella

archive 1, archive 2, archive3, archive 4, archive 5, archive6, archive 7, archive 8, archive 9, archive 10, archive 11, archive 12, archive 13, archive 14, archive 15, archive 16, archive 17, archive 18

Keeping track of misinformation and spam and stuff is probably not something a lot of people think of . Let alone look for it, record it/make official & thorough record of it, report it, remove it, research it, double-verify it, change it, wait for approval, record it, put it all together tied in a nice wikiBow add added to your database next to all the others. Geez you can make a whole movie out of just one text of misinformation . This is the foundation of Wikipedia and you are pertinent to it. I just want to say thank you for your work because it is literally free and you did nor do not have to do this (unless I'm an idiot and you actually work for Wikipedia then quadruple my appreciation) but you are for sure here for integrity sake . That's the real thanks right there. Th5tW1k1Guy (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Th5tW1k1Guy - Much appreciated. ...and for the record I am just a volunteer like most others here. Best regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   07:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Velella! BTW(rules of paranoia), Robert Geers claims are all S**T! 208.71.200.78 (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your guidance! I'm improving the article and will late publish it. Luiz265 (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does saying that a tree has a trunk and the trunk supports branches which are above the ground not "make sense"?Emphasis01 (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit created the following text

"A tree trunk that typically supports many secondary branches clear of the ground by the trunk, which typically contains woody tissue for strength, and vascular tissue to carry materials from one part of the tree to another"

which is not a sentence as it has no verb. In any case it was better before IMO.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   07:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you struck through a few votes at this AfD for them being confirmed socks. I took a look at these users and it seems like they aren't blocked? TLA^tlak 08:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me, just saw the investigation. TLA^tlak 08:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

liz - In your close of the Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swaady Martin you stated that " ....do not strike out any "votes"/arguments unless the editor is a confirmed sockpuppet of a block-evading editor" and reinstated the vote!s struck through. However the two editors had already been confirmed as socks here. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it seems like Liz missed the investigation, same as me. Maybe it's worth putting a link to the investigation in the AfD in the future? TLA^tlak 23:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your edits to Edgar Louton, I am inclined to disagree about notability but agree about third party. Kindly take a look at the many newspaper sources from the decades, as well as the book closely detailing his ministry which sold many copies. Thanks. I think it would be better to say that in order to verify the info we need sources that are more clearly objective, but definitely notable. 41.10.86.248 (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not too excercised about this. Maintenance tags rarely produce much improvement to an article although it does give interested editors a notice that the quality of the article is less than satisfactory. I was originally going to nominate at AfD but had a change of heart. I still believe that it is an AfD candidate unless it is substantially imrpoved, but I am not going to get into a fight about which specific maintenance templates are used in the meantime. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.pressreader.com/india/hindustan-times-lucknow/20220425/281715503175215 Rrgilko (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, its a press release. What of it ?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Velella,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you have once again deleted my article. As asked, my sources have been converted for easy access for the readers. There are 25 induvial sources, and some are mentioned multiple times. Why is it that you keep deleting my article? I have gone through Wikipedia's editor training, and I am working on this research project at one of the most prestigious universities in the US. I am not trying to misinform any readers and that would never be my intention. George John Seaton was a prisoner and slave that is not widely recorded in history. Our goal as a class is to inform readers about their stories and about who these induvial were. I understand that if you search George John Seaton on a public search engine he does not come up. That is the point to writing an article about him on Wikipedia. My sources are being pulled from Washington University in St. Louis library which is highly reputable. Please let me know why you are continuing to delete my article. I have worked hard over the last week to reinforce any of the issues you found in my previous draft. I did not think this would be a continuing issue. Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeorgiaobrien - Firstly, I have not deleted the article(s) that you started. I have moved one version to Draft so that you could work on it there in relative safety. The second version, that you created quite separately from the Draft, I have nominated for deletion because it does not, in my opinion, meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia. An admin will decide in a couple of weeks or so whether it will or will not be deleted.

I did provide advice when I moved the first version to Draft, but I guess that you have chosen to ignore that advice. This is fine, you are under no obligation to follow advice of experienced editors but equally, I am not obliged to give any special consideration to a project that you have spend significant time in writing. The Wikipedia rules on notability take no heed of the amount of work or of the University that you attend. Follow the rules and all will be well. Fail to follow the rules and you may fare less well.

If you would value some more advice I would suggest carefully sifting through your sources, putting aside any that are written by the subject or which use their writing as their source and look for reputable sources that discuss the individual. Having found those sources, include direct verbatim quotes from those sources (in inverted commas) either in the reference itself, so that it appears in the footnotes, or in the main body if that seems appropriate, or even on the talk page so that other editors of less prestigious Universities can satisfy themselves that the notability criteria are met. I have no wish to impeded your University career but I am not prepared to change the rules to help effect that.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   18:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how about these sources to add on to the ones that I already had?

[1] (access this on archive dot ph for no paywall)

[2]

[3]

I also was able to find that it was screened at two different noteworthy film festivals:

[4]

[5]

Being discussed in The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Screen Australia, the National Film and Sound Archive, and the National Museum of Australia - and being screened in competition at the Annecy International Animation Film Festival and the Melbourne International Film Festival should be enough to establish that this show is notable enough to have an article.--LadybugStardust (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no edits to Human Contraptions so am unsure what you now expect?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You rejected the initial draft. Remember? Anyways, I already added new sources and turned it into an article.--LadybugStardust (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, 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. Each review will earn 1 point. 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.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To separare the subject from its verb with a comma is simply wrong. Do you write " Paul, is a boy" or "Paul is a boy" ?? To do it again when you reverted my edition twice is wrong and 2x stupid. Please read a grammar book and restore my edition. Or do whatever you want, I do not care... Mschlindwein ^msg 23:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page stalker here. New comments should be placed at the end of a page. As to your point, Velella observed there was a parenthetical clause. The question should be: Do you write "Paul, from down the street is a boy" or "Paul, from down the street, is a boy"? The answer to your question can be found in many books and web pages. E.g. Normally a parenthetical element has a comma before and after it.[6] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not heard any recent feedback from you regarding the George John Seaton page. The talk page for deletion has been nominated for relisting due to the immense changes that have occurred in the last few weeks. Please review the article again and comment your thoughts to this editor. They are hoping to hear back from you, and it is helpful for me to make any last changes before my semester comes to an end. Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no two commas “issue”, since one comma is inside the parenthesis and the other one is outside them. This means you are separating the subject “Snowdon” from its verb “to be —> is”. The sentence reads “Snowden, is a mountain…”, which is wrong not only in English, but in all languages I’m aware of. Or do you think that writing “Einstein, is a physicist” is correct? 😏🤦‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️ If you do, ask your English teacher and put my correction back. I’m done with this point, I do not like to waste my time with stupidity. Mschlindwein ^msg 20:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why four days after the AfD was closed as keep rather than add any of the sources identified you started a new AfD? That's literally disruptive behaviour. I'm also curious why you're so obsessed with getting rid of this article while the project is full of so many unsourced articles. I hope you read the close of the new AfD very thoroughly. AusLondonder (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Superphosphate, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John Bennet Lawes started producing superphosphate, the first chemical manure produced in the world, from fossilised dinosaur dung on an industrial scale? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Superphosphate. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Superphosphate), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of my content and edits comes with significant surprise. I'm not writing a manual, only adding encyclopedic content. I have enhanced a number of horticultural pages and do not understand why this effort to update and enhance a poor out-of-date page has been removed. Satin66Flower (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pls see the edit summary for reasoning.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Velella hope you are well. On 10 November 2023 you rejected an article for a footballer on this page: Mamadou Doumbia (footballer, born 2006). I have no reason to object to it as it was a short page with little to no detail, 1 source. Since then the player in question has signed for a professional club in England (Watford, joining in the 2024-25 Watford F.C. Season) and is the only player on the squad without a page. It has 10 sources now, with a lot independent of football (BBC, Leadership News, Watford News) and big channels like ESPN. I am new to Wikipedia and first draft I've submitted and assume you re-assess it? Although I have no clue. Backdoored (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Backdoored . Thanks for your note. I very rarely review draft articles more than once, to try and avoid bias. However, I have been keeping an eye on your Draft and it did seem to be improving in notability. I have no expertise in football related topics so will leave this to another, more appropriate editor to review. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Velella. This redirect is incorrect; I purposely "orphaned" it as it had incoming links from articles unrelated to the topic. I intend to write a first entry on one of the streets by that name. However, currently, the redirect is technically incorrect and goes against the guidelines on redirects. Therefore, either it should be deleted because it's incorrect and misleading, or we can keep the version that will soon have at least one blue link. --teatroge (dm) 23:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carreg yr Halen 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 until the discussion has finished.

Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 18:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Velella, I have worked on the draft of Jan Poolman and added several sources upon your comments. Could you please have another look at it? The Dutch wikipedia page is published for a while now, but I would like to have the English page also published.

Jan Poolman is at the same or even higher level than Hanneke Schuitemaker (former head & VP Viral Vaccines at Johnson & Johnson) and Jaap Goudsmit (former Scientific director at Crucell, later Janssen), both have an approved English and Dutch Wikipedia page.

Draft:Jan Poolman - Wikipedia

Thanks for your reconsideration and time!, wikicluck44 Wikicluck44 (talk) 06:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicluck44 - Thanks for the offer, but I try not to review drafts more than once to avoid any personal bias I may have from influencing the outcome. The only ones that I generally do re-visit is the disasters which need to be kept out of Wikipedia or very substantially improved. I am sure that someone else will review the article soon, although having ad a very quick look, I would find those very long headings very off-putting. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   07:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply.

Best wikicluck44 Wikicluck44 (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. 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.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Velella! I just wanted to stop by and let you know that I declined your G5 speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Edwin De La Renta because the page was significantly edited before the user was blocked. As such, the edits were not made in violation of a block. Let me know if you have any follow-up questions, comments, and/or concerns. Thank you! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significa liberdade- thanks for the update although it does produce a somewhat Catch 22 situation. The draft can't be deleted because the authors were only blocked 2 weeks after they started writing the article but meanwhile an admin has protected the mainspace title from creation until October 2025, meaning that the draft will indeed be deleted. Somtimes the rules seem to trip us up when they were never intended to do so. Ho hum...  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Velella, don’t forget to add yourself here if you want to run for admin! It’s closing today in UTC! starship.paint (RUN) 10:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint - Thanks. As always, cold feet about taking this step coupled with imposter syndrome means that I am worrying almost as much about the process as about the outcome! I have now added my name and will see what now happens. Rejection might be just as welcome as acceptance.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been brave, Velella. Try not to worry - either you are qualified, or you are not. Either you will become administrator soon, or not. Worrying is not productive. When the questions appear, simply do your best to answer them. Instead of worrying, how about simply editing however you have been before the elections began? Anyway, I am also taking part in the elections. Let's try our best together! starship.paint (RUN) 16:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say that with really serious (and obvious) COI repeat offenders like the one you recently brought to COIN it's usually better to make the report at ANI to get the user site blocked ASAP. Admins don't seem to patrol COIN any more, but I've asked admin Star Mississippi to take a look and hopefully block the user. Regards, Axad12 (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Axad12 - Many thanks for that. I had considered ANI but it seemed a bit of a hammer to crack a nut. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I believe the user is now blocked. If they return as an IP address or alternative account, consider maybe WP:RPPI. See also, blocking admin's comments here (bottom of thread) [7]. Axad12 (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, regarding your comments on my declined draft "Unsure where notability is supposed to lie. What the refs show is that it is in the top 5% of Neuro podcasts - but how do they compare with other podcasts? The sound very niche and, more that one name is listed in the source. The enzyme research does not in itself convey notability. This whole article looks way too soon . This fails WP:GNG and it doesn't help that the refs are poorly formatted , but that isn't a reason for declining the Draft." there are multiple independent, reliable sources exploring the topic, so I'm not sure notability is an issue. The 5% ranking metrics come from https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/neuro-podcases-neuro-podcases-XWu1lj46m5J/, which is referenced in the draft. if you click not he global rank and follow their explanations to listen scores etc. Listen Notes explain how the global rank is calculated. Not sure what kind of comparison to other podcasts you are expecting to see here. What do you mean that more than one name is listed in the source? For an article to " look[] way too soon" is not a reason to decline it according to WP guidelines. We can fix the formatting of the refs together if you like, happy to collaborate on this. Thanks. Hlfdalla (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hlfdalla - Fixing the refs would be a useful step forward, although it doesn't bear on acceptability or otherwise. What is missing is compliance with WP:GNG which is well worth reading carefully as this is where the definitions of notability lie. All the extra links now under "Further reading" are also confusing. Why are they included? If they are intended to demonstrate notability, then they shoudl be included as in-line refs appropiately formatted. If not they seem to have little value.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Velella Hello,

Thank you for your thorough feedback and for raising concerns about the draft's compliance with WP:GNG. I have reviewed the notability guidelines and am familiar with WP:GNG, and I agree that meeting notability requirements is essential for an article's acceptance.

I understand previous comments on the reliability of interviews and I can assure you that the sources come from established media and academic sources, it's clearer now with the improved referencing/citation format. Also, the presence of multiple independent, reliable sources (as desired according to WP:GNG) discussing the podcast supports its notability and that its ranking indicates a level of recognition that can establish notability further. Regarding the podcast, the ranking in the top 5% globally by Listen Notes is based on their "Listen Score" metrics, which evaluate global popularity across all genres, not just neuro-related podcasts, and this info can be found on the reference I cited. Plus, I found a journal discussing the podcast's impact in the science community and this demonstrates broader recognition. Regarding, "more than one name is listed in the source,", I should clarify that this is common in media coverage, especially for collaborations or interviews involving multiple experts. This should not undermine the reliability of the sources and hence the notability of the article.

I made the references more explicit and fixed the citations so that they follow a logic and flow. As for the protein research, I appreciate your concern and aimed to better explain the impact of the key study which has opened a significant area of research and the subsequent independent research it has sparked. This includes molecular and clinical studies addressing the broader implications. I also removed the confusing "Further Reading" section.

Finally, I'm happy to collaborate on fixing any minor changes as we see fit. I hope these adjustments address your concerns and improve the draft's standards.

Thank you. Hlfdalla (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'dd add my thoughts here... this page (@Draft:Filippo Dall'Armellina) is more detailed and better sourced than other wikipedia biographies (i.e. Emma Yhnell) in which multiple reference links don't work if you check them out. HLF356 (talk) 08:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "Also I'dd add my thoughts here..." - aren't you the same editor Hlfdalla just with a change of name? Anyway, please see WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS - just because one arti le is poorly sources (if indeed that is the case, doesn't justify another poorly sourced article. This whole argument and this article feels strongly like self promotion. Are you the subject of this article?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Surely there's no point rejecting a deaft if you intend to nominate it for speedy deletion, especially if you're using G10 which requires that the page be blanked? Just a thought. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell - Absolutely agree. I was in the middle of the review process and relaised it was an obvious speedy candidate. I should not have pressed the button for the review. Apologies  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Instructions for candidates

Thank you for choosing to run in the October 2024 administrator elections. This bulletin contains some important information about the next stages of the election process.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 15–21: SecurePoll setup phase
• October 22–24: Discussion phase
• October 25–31: SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–?: Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the SecurePoll setup phase. Your candidate subpage will remain closed to questions and discussion. However, this is an excellent opportunity for you to recruit nominators (if you want them) and have them place their nomination statements, and a good time for you to answer the standard three questions, if you have not done so already. We recommend you spend the SecurePoll setup phase from October 15–21 getting your candidate page polished and ready for the next phase.

The discussion phase will take place from October 22–24. Your candidate subpage will open to the public and they will be permitted to discuss you and ask you formal questions, in the same style as a request for adminship (RfA). Please make sure you are around on those dates to answer the formal questions in a timely manner.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. Anyone can see who has voted, but not who they voted for. You are permitted and encouraged to vote in the election, including voting for yourself. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see your tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RfA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, you must have received at least 70% support, calculated as support ÷ (support + oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("'crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation as a candidate, and best of luck.

You're receiving this message because you are a candidate in the October 2024 administrator elections.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah , there's the rub. One of the concerns that I have had about the RfA process is the need to recruit sponsors. I have always felt very ambivalent about asking other respected editors to sponsor me. If others watching this page felt inclined to write a few words of support, that would be most welcome.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   07:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for this message in the mids of the admin elections. I've been looking at your recent creations and while I've enjoyed reading them, I noted that they almost all fall short of current expectations around autopatrolled. For instance, Pressure sewer is missing citations for almost half of its content, Cwrt Herbert is missing a citation, Pond life is missing citations etc. Less importantly, there is a high rate of minor issues, such as missing full stops, capitalisation etc. I'm considering removing the perm for now (very happy to regrant after a record of faultless creations / fixing old creations), but wanted to give you a chance to reply. Courtesy ping to @HJ Mitchell, who granted autopatrolled back in 2011. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Femke- will sort these out during the coming week. Currently only able to log-on for a few minutes each day. I don't believe that any of the unsourced content is contentious , but I will sort out sources. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right these issues are not in contentious articles and the BLPs I reviewed only had minor issues, such as MOS:CURRENT and MOS:CREDENTIAL. Please ping me when you've resolved these articles. I still think it may be beneficial for others to have a look at future creations. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Femke - Additional sources now provided.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving the articles! However, there are still unsourced sentences, and even unsourced sections (such as Pond life#Animals that use ponds for only part of their development. I'm removing autopatrolled for now. If you are succesful in the election (fingers crossed), you can self-assign autopatrolled, but I probably won't have to tell you to only do this if urged by others or let another person make the decision altogether.

I'm also assigning page mover for 6 months. A few draftification mistakes were noted during the elections, hence the temporary granting, but you seem to know what you're doing and I hope this will make life easier for you. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. As we're preparing to move from one stage to the next, this is just a quick note from one member of the test group to another, wishing you well in the process of this new alternative to RfA. It seems that there are more of us in this group than some in the community anticipated, so i hope that doesn't make the experience any the worse for all of us. Whatever our individual results, i thank you, along with the rest, for stepping up and testing this process; happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 07:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LindsayH - Many thanks. Your comments are much appreciated. It will be interesting to see the outcome for all involved!. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   07:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could become an administrator soon, but in the meantime, would you like to have page mover rights so that you would not have to tag redirects with {{db-r2}} when draftifiying? I see that you were previously a page mover for three months in 2022. GTrang (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GTrang - Many thanks for your kind offer. As you say, I did have page mover rights for a few months before it naturally expired. I had thought about re-applying, because it would make things simpler. Your offer is appreciated, so perhaps I could get back to you after this admin brouhaha is all over - I strongly suspect that I won't be an admin. I clearly stepped on somebody's toes, inadvertently, at the wrong moment!  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]