User talk:Velella/archive

Please do not mark edits that change the content of an article as minor edits like you did in the cooking article, thank you. 203.213.75.70 (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misunderstood me, at no point did I dispute that the nutrients in fruit and vegetables are destroyed and/or eluted during cooking. Please do not insult people they by claiming they are misinformed or uninformed just because you disagree with the edit that they made. I was not telling you what to do I was merely asking you to please follow the Wikipedia guidelines when is to comes to marking edits as minor. If you unsure of what these guidelines are you can find them here WP:MINOR. The destruction and elution of nutrients is already mentioned in the preceding paragraph, I have elaborated slightly and incorporated the information about the vitamin C for the sake of brevity. If you think there has been something I have left out please add it or let me know. 203.213.75.70 (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nominating an article to DYK. As you can see at T:TDYK#Lepidothamnus laxifolius, you'll need to expand the article a bit further before we can promote it. Ucucha 00:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is now a little longer (420 words), if you wanted to take another look. Thanks. Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   20:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It's actually already on its way to the Main Page and will go there in about four hours. Ucucha 20:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On December 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lepidothamnus laxifolius, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Bulbine bulbosa at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! (Note: I always leave approvals to others.) Art LaPella (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now expanded and significantly longer.  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   12:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's now long enough, and it passes the DYKcheck test, except for the R5 stub problem. Others will make a more subjective evaluation. Art LaPella (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about that - it hasn't been a stub for a while now ? No big deal, I'll leave it to the arbiters!  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   21:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On December 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bulbine bulbosa, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Anaerobic digestion/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might note that at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Thomas Telford, also introduced some extraneous text around some numerical characters. This may be due to a combination of your browser and Skype trying to identify and highlight telephone numbers. Thank you. --Rumping (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information about the names was originally entered by an anon in the coracle article on the 7th May. The anon seems to have inside information, but unfortunately gave no citations. I haven't been able to confirm the information by searching the web. John Davies crops up a fair bit in connection with coracles, but not "his brother" Will. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Raw water, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 04:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the version I came across was vandalised to the point of being an incomprehensible attack page. It was deleted and then restored without the attack edits.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 12:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(discussion moved to Talk:Bangor,_Gwynedd to seek wider views )  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   21:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: comment on my edits Dear Velela, Thank you for your attention. I want to give a solid rationale for some of my edits. Article: Ecosystem. The point is that paradoxically, in current literature there are no good definitions of ecosystem. Almost all definitions you can find in literature have logical defects. Usually they include in the text of the definitions other terms that in turn have to be defined. Often those terms are defined using the term 'ecosystem', so that the vicious circle take place. See some discusion in support at the site: http://blog.researchgate.net/masterblog/2220_New_Definition_of_Ecosystem

The paper that was added to the article has a UNIQUE definition that is simple, compatible with current knowledge and is free from the defect mentioned above. Thank you and kind wishes Mytilus (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Openstreetmap is linked from every single wikipedia article that has coordinates. For that reason and the fact that there are tens of other mapping resources for a given geographic location I don't see a need to have it listed within the article. Please ignore my edit summary reverting your revert - I hit the wrong button and didn't mean to tag it as vandalism. --Simple Bob (talk) 08:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for the work you did to help fix the Whole Wheat Bread / Whole Wheat Bread (band) problem which I had mentioned on the Talk:Brown_bread page. Thanks and good job on the article stub. Fallendarling (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the attention that you have given to my recently posted Pond aeration page. This is my first stab at a Wikipedia entry, so I will gladly accept any help or suggestions. I apologize for the references, and have added ISBN numbers as well as some web links. Additionally, any wording and/or economizing of my writing and information is welcomed so long as it does not detract from the content of the article.

That being said, I do not think that much of my information is completely misguided as you seem to suggest to MrOllie: "There is a great deal which is just plain wrong and only makes sense if the reader assumes that this only applies to amenity ponds. Even then it is still wrong." While I do not claim that the science behind my writing is flawless, I do not believe it to be grossly inaccurate either. For instance, this type of aeration is not limited simply to amenity ponds, as oftentimes stormwater management ponds require aeration in order to prevent eutrophication. Much of this is covered in the Pond Management Guidebook, which was deleted from the external links section. While I understand the deletion of some of the links provided, I believe that the Pond Management Guidebook, as well as the Copper Sulfate white paper are both legitimate, useful resources that can be helpful to those seeking information on this subject.

In addition, the majority of my information is cited, and while I appreciate any suggestions and/or criticism, if you are going to add or change any of my information, it may be helpful for you to add citations of your own. Lastly, I would contend that pond aeration is not limited to only seriously polluted or amenity ponds. It may be the most beneficial when employed in seriously polluted ponds, but it can technically be added to any pond. In other words, the process of aeration itself is not dependent upon the pond being seriously polluted. Trlabarge (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have re-written the article following comments in the AFD debate, please look at the new version, and change your vote if you feel that your concerns have been satisfied. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the Wales article forward for GA status. It just needs tweaking, and maybe a heavy-handed swipe from outside to get it in place. I am writing to those who are constant contributors and defenders of Wales and Welsh articles, to not scream at me for doing this, but to help get the article through. If we fail, we fail, there is nothing wrong with that; but Wales should be a Good Article at least. Thanks FruitMonkey (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me. I have removed the speedy deletion tag from the Tim Stonock article - according to WP:CRIN, and by extension, WP:BIO, the cricketer is notable, having played a List A cricket match.

I also noticed there was a small amount of vandalism on the article, which I have since removed.

Hope all is well. Bobo. 20:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I don't know if you're following Talk:Weight loss effects of water, but I've posted a request for clarification to you and the other critical editor there. Thanks. --greenrd (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Velella,

The picture you have uploaded as Safrron stigmas crocus sativa is for sure not of a Crocus sativus.
I guess that it is of a Crocus cancellatus, another species which is cultivated for their corms, which are eaten by some populations of Asia Minor. But I am not sure... it could also be of a form of Crocus speciosus, another species of Asia Minor, which is cultivated for its beautiful flowers.
Could you please let me know the location where you have taken this picture, so that I can confirm that it is Crocus cancellatus?
Best botanic regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am in need of some clarification with this whole Wikipedia thing...It is supposed to be a concensus is what I am told yet my edits have been deleted making it a monopoly of one persons thoughts. I made several "additions" to articles already posted on Wikipedia. I did not alter the existing articles but rather added a category that was not previously covered but was introduced by Wikipedia. Wikipedia talks about "water features...both man-made and natural, yet they do not go into any detail about the man-made aspects of these features. When you go to the articles on Brooks, Creeks and Streams...it is "ALL" about the natural aspects and does not even touch on the man-made side...how biased is that? Why can't their be a seperate section on those pages that just covers the man-made side of the feature? What harm is there? Yet it would satisfy a lot of people looking for that additional information.

I am being told by you that my opinion is an "American" version not viewed by the rest of the world but this is not correct. I am an international contractor and have installed water features in more than 47 countries around the globe. NO ONE is as advanced with landscape and water feature design as the America...that is a fact! That does not make us better than anyone else...it just means that for the vast majority of the world, our contributions are far more advanced. This is why people pay us tens of thousands of dollars to go to other countries and design and install water features...because there is NO ONE in that particular country capable of doing the work. The references I sited come from an international organization that has members from 52 world countries...it is clearly NOT an American version but a concensus of what the wprlds water feature contractors think. We specifically solicited every members opinion in these matters and debated the topics for years before these definitions were established!

I do not take personal offense in having you remove my additions but I do nto understand why anyone would want to show one side of a particular topic and not cover each possibility. Even Websters Dictionary has multiple definitions under each listed word...why would Wikipedia want to have just one version of a topic and not share as much valued information as possible with the world. There are hundreds of thousands of landscape contractors who would benefit greatly from knowing want the man-made characteristics are for these water feature types.

I just want to contribute anything I may have that may be of value.wburny —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wburny (talk • contribs) 18:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wburny refers to Wikipedia:Help desk#Unjustified deleted edits and also posted to User talk:PrimeHunter#Edits and Additions. I work at the help desk but don't edit or know much about water features so I hope you will discuss with wburny. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is good. However, a more descriptive reasoning would be helpful as it was not vandalism. I would suggest an edit summary with WP:ENGVAR in it :-) You should also advise the editor who made the editor about that policy when you do it. Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for rolling back the article. It's frustrating that the old content keeps getting brought back. Is there any way to prevent this from becoming an edit war? I'm adding some content, but everything I'm adding is verifiable and relevant, unlike the user who is being unreasonable with his edits.

Hey Velella, I see you left a comment on the Welsh Wikipedians' notice board about the Welsh Argentine article. You may want to add your comment to the move discussion here. Thanks,--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As wikipedians, it is our responsibility to revert vandalism whenever we find it. You don't have to thank me for something I should have done anyway. Have a nice day!--Piast93 21:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...for fighting vandalism in my user page. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to the comment you left on my talk page. Sorry for taking so long. --Piast93 20:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you stop reverting the MBDA article to the version where HQ is Paris, France. The REGISTERED ADDRESS of MBDA Holdings SAS is in Paris, yes. However, this is NOT the company HQ. The corporate HQ has been, since 2nd February 2002, 11 Strand, London. It should also be noted that MBDA Holdings is, as the name suggests, a HOLDING company, which is there purely to facilitate the multinational actions of this company. Check the link I posted to the MBDA website (EADS is a shareholder, and is NOT MBDA), which states the corporate HQ is at 11 Strand, London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.35.235 (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now fixed up the article. Please read the WP guidelines - they do help.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How was my contribution to that talk page un-constructive. Who is it for you to decide, isnt it for the said user? WatsonJamesB (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you restored the sock's bogus claims of being an admin? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I simply restored a your page blanking that had little in the way of edit summary to help. I have read your note at AIV and would concur but until its decided my guess was that blanking a page didn't get us too far. Reverting relevant sections that were misleading I would have supported. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to avoid feeding the troll, but too late now. That character has had many guises, most of them variants on the admin's name. But posting stuff asserting he himself is an admin is going too far. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He B indef'd now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You and Krashlandon just saved me three reverts on my user page. Thanks so much! Keep up the great work! --Gnowor^T_C 21:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome - I think it might be four now!  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}  

I'm sorry, but I don't think my edit constituted vandalism, as it was made in good faith (i.e. in an attempt to improve the quality of the article, not the opposite). I made the mistake of first making an edit before explaining it in the talk page; I wrote the explanation in the talk page a few minutes later, but the edit had been reverted. I then repeated the edit, as I had given justification for it. If there's something else I need to do to legitimize my edit, please let me know. I will hold off on re-editing the article, obviously, but the problem I noted in the talk page needs to be addressed. 201.252.127.228 (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm sorry for the trouble - this is my first time editing an article, and I totally glossed over the fact that I should explain my edit in the edit summary, besides using the talk page. Hopefully I'll get better at this! 201.252.127.228 (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is in reference to this edit. The template {{hangon}} was edited to better support the reason given by the editor (original creator of the page) that had placed the template. May I ask why you edited this to place the reason out of it's {{hangon|X}} format? --ForgottenHistory (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't. Another editor was making or trying to make spurious edits at the same time resulting in edit conflicts. I simply copied the latest version I could salvage and pasted it back. Cut out the repetition etc. but left the two tags well alone. If a comment was lost, that is regretable but it was not lost from any intent on my part.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}  

The link I added is from cagematch.de, a site that has been used for several other wrestling articles here on this site. As far as I know, the other articles still use cagematch.de as an additional and verifiable source. 72.185.171.33 (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Velella. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of CampusExplorer, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Sources enough for A7. Prod or take to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  19:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wikisanta-no motto.png

Merry Christmas At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Green and Yellow Present.gif

File:Yellow and Red present.gif

File:Blue and Red Present.gif

What am I wrong about? Christian holidays beginning at six o'clock? Jesus being born at night? His birth being celebrated at midnight mass? The Earth being round? Water being wet?-62.63.246.247 (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a reputable reference for Jesus being born at night and it can stay. Until then it is just speculation.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean a reputable source for christians believing this? Eeehhh, I do believe that's called the "Bible". And why don't you erase the entire paragraph, since it lacks references altogether? There is no reference saying that they celebrate the beginning of Christmas day, either. Nor that there are midnight masses in the mentioned churches. If you look to the left of the page, to the links to other language wikipedias, you'll notice that in a lot of languages Christmas Eve is referred to as "Christmas Evening", the "Good Night" or the "Holy Night". This is precisely what it is in the Christian tradition: the evening of Christmas, when Jesus was born. -62.63.246.247 (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Bible, when used as a reference still needs to be quoted. There is much that people "know" is in the Bible that isn't. So, for example, Matthew 2 has the Magi visiting by night. Luke 2 has the shepherds woken at night and Jesus borne in a manger but no mention of being born at night. Now my knowledge of the Bible is probably less complete than it might be so if you can find and insert an appropriate reference, as I noted above, it can stand.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please request a mediator for this article then? This information is totally inappropriate and unsourced for Kenya and I am very uncomfortable with the reasoning and ideological basiss for its inclusion. Please let me know how I can request a mediator (you can see in the discussion page that these things have been hashed and rehashed). 65.96.74.249 (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide clear and informative edit summaries and a reference for your edit, it would make life a great deal easier. An anonymous editor simply removing content with no edit summaries and no external sources quoted looks very much like vandalism.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find you got the wrong person. I was the one reverting the vandalism, not the one vandalising. AndrewvdBK (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your page - it was us both removing the same vandalism and in an edit conflict huggle reverted your revert - I deleted your talk page message.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) AndrewvdBK (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I promise to keep an eye on it and put any worms back in the can that I have let loose if the table gets too big. I just really, really think the table will help visitors. I went to the page as a visitor to see if this has even happened before. I suspect most of the (now) 500+ visitors would think this recent event is a massive, one-off freak occurrence, if it weren't for the table. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I commented:

Thank you, thank you, thank you! What's the biggest you know of?

Did you see this? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the Dee kill (already included) but there have been so many in Britain over the years and yet our rivers are now amongst the cleanest in the developed world. I have seen several other fish kills in other countries which seem to have been simply ignored. The real problem is providing appropriate refs. Unless someone like the BBC or a major Newspaper picks them up, individual kills rarely get reported in corporate annual reports or by the relevant regulation bodies and the information and history is then lost. I might try making a Freedom of information request to the Environment Agency to see what they have on record, but they only go back to 1995 and I doubt even then that I could use a response as a reference unless it gets published somewhere reputable. Not an easy area to work in !  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess we can only include what is well sourced. Good idea about the freedom of information plan. I bet if a whole bunch of corporate nasties from chemical companies washed up on shore, they'd count them all.

The greater than symbol messes up the sorting. Is there an alternative? Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a matter of F5ing his edits until he finally got blocked. I knew he wasn't going to stop until then, so I just waited him out. Easy way to up my edit count. HalfShadow 23:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you restored the content of this page, which had been previously blanked by its author; such blankings can be taken as implicit deletion requests and tagged with {{db-blanked}}. Feezo (Talk) 22:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed is was up for speedy but the intervention of another editor obscured my view of the originating author (in Huggle) otherwise I would have done exactly what you suggest. Regards.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The informations in the article Krane were mostly false, that is why I have removed it. User: Tezzibaxer, 9th January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tezzibaxe (talk • contribs)

What text edit ? I got distracted, screwed up, and then corrected the screw-up. And yes, I know what vandalism is, having been here off and on for over four years. This is not it. Jackfirst (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If your edits had meaningful edit summaries rather than just one or two words and were backed up by references then, and only then, they might stand. Changing the significant meaning of a medical article (or any article for that matter) without a reasoned explanation and without good sources is always going to look like vandalism and be treated as such.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Most (all?) of what I did was simple editing of grammer, sorely-needed in this article. I noted this in the edit summaries. Not sure how I could reference such things-- an English style book perhaps. If you object to specific changes, change them, but please do not revert the whole thing. Jackfirst (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the deleted bullet on snow causing leachfields to not work properly, what I meant to say is snowMELT. here are some links to some references:

• <http://www.friendlyplumber.com/plumbing101/septic_system_melting.html>
• <http://www.friendlyplumber.com/plumbing101/septic_system_melting.html>

-Kyle1081 (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes much more sense. I would also add that flooding from heavy rainfall or from the rivers or the sea would also havethe same impact. However, the reference is not ideal as it foes back to a commercial plumbing firm in Southern California (do they have heavy snow-fall there ?!). But as it makes good sense I would be happy to see local inundation added as a problem for septic tanks, without a ref for the moment until we can find a good reference.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have inserted some text (without refs) but I will try and find a ref over the next few months.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I didn't check and find out it was in California.....OK that's fine. -Kyle1081 (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I work with Greenberg Traurig as a communications consultant and it is our goal to have the Greenberg Traurig Wikipedia entry provide information about the firm in a way that does not promote it. We would be happy to re-write any part of the page you feel uses promotional language, please let me know what exactly on the page you consider advertising and we will propose revisions for your review as soon as possible. Mwp42881 (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's unsourced, but it's not negative content, it's just a legend. Trouble is, I'm pretty sure the legend was associated with Davy Crockett, not Daniel Boone. They're easy to confuse, as they both looked like Fess Parker. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The message was one of Huggle's own - not always the most apt. However, legends, no matter how commonly believed have no part here. Sorry!  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legends can be stated if sourced. That one's pretty common. A number of American folk heroes have obviously-phony legends surrounding them. George Washington and the cherry tree, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with sourced legends , its that ones that "everybody knows" that I hunt down (oh and the one that say that Arthur and the Knights of the round table originated here) - always unsourced.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The story about the bear is an old, silly story that every kid my generation had read about and knew that it was obviously just an entertaining tall tale. But sourcing is indeed important. For example, you couldn't source the King Arthur legends by citing primarily Monty Python and the Holy Grail. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey just wanted you to be aware that in attempting to undo some vandalism to the page Matt Stone you accidentally reverted the page to a still (subtly) vandalized state. This can cause a major problems because it make the vandalims much harder to find. Thanks. If you have any questions drop me a line at my talk page.Drewerd (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of an edit conflict as we both moved to correct the page....but I can't see any residual vandalism (unless you count "an" going to "a") and I don't see any subsequent edits other than the semi-protection ?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   00:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the comment. I'm new here so I'm not too sure of all the editing rules and such.

Could you tell me how my editing wasn't NPOV? Was it the BOLD? I just noticed that after the fact of saving it, I should have previewed it first. How would you suggest I fix my edit so that it is more applicable. I do think that it should be noted somewhere in that page that there is a hand sign with a similar sounding name, and yet a very different meaning.

Thanks, 116.36.135.131

Also, is this the usual format for user discussion on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.36.135.131 (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with raising issues with other contributing editors as you have done.

There is equally no problem with making edits to articles. In this case you introduced material that probably makes good sense to you but not necessarily to a wider audience. The shocker sign is almost exclusively used in the USA and rarely elsewhere. In an article like this if there is risk of confusion it is better done with an additional sentence at the end with a link to the relevant material and, if possible, providing an independent reference. It would also have helped me a great deal if you had used an edit summary to explain why you were making the edit.

Hope that that all makes some sort of sense. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Velella. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of James Pace High School, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: High schools are normally reckoned notable. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 22:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know the policy but this was was barely a stub and it was impossible to sort fact from vandalism in its two sentences. I reckoned it would be better for somebody to start over again. Ho hum....  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it to a cleanish stub, it's always a good idea to check the history. ϢereSpielChequers 22:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fish kill is a kind of watershed article which draws on so many areas it's hard to see where the balance lies. I developed Cyanotoxin as a background article to fish kill (prompted by your query on blue green algae). I'm still unclear about the role of toxins in fish kill, and maybe another background article on dinoflagellate or phytoplankton toxins might help. If you are interested, I'm also thinking of a background article on thermal shock in fish. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested, but I shall probably be unable to contribute much until April - I am off on a 26000 mile round trip to the Coromandel to see the recent fish kill site for myself (OK, so there are other reasons too!) Re examples of thermal shock, I personally investigated a major kill from thermal shock involving the uncontrolled release of liquid nitrogen into a small river killing everything present. We had Eels that would smash into glass-like slivers when hit; but regrettably the kill was not formally documented in a way that would match Wikipedias's citation requirements.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the small Coromandel kill of such interest? I had the impression it could have just originated from a local fishing misadventure. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, its not. Its just that I'll be there with my family on holiday and I thought I'd give the site a walk-by (swim by). No greater significance than that I am afraid. But it will be nice to experience temperatures above zero centigrade!  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well... happy holidaying! --Epipelagic (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]