User talk:NewYorkActuary

Draft:Natalie Duddington

Thank you for reviewing my proposed article on Natalie Duddington.

I am puzzled that you expect the article to conform to WP:NACADEMIC criteria: she was by no means an academic, never teaching at any institution. Yet the occasional papers that she published are remembered and cited to this day (see note 12) by academics. I checked just one article of hers in Google scholar and found more than a dozen citations, most of them from the current century -- how about that for an article dating from exactly a hundred years ago!

Duddington was a translator, a thoroughly neglected species throughout much of the 20th century. Reviews of translated books frequently omitted to mention the translator's name; even publishers tended to think of them as convenient hacks. So there are few reviews or assessments of her work -- I quote a major one by a leading academic (note 9). Excluding her from Wiki merely perpetuates this injustice.

Duddington translated 28 books (that I have identified so far). Not a bad score, considering that in addition she collaborated with Garnett on at least that many. Working alone, she made her own choice of books to translate and had to persuade publishers to accept them. And they are remembered. On Google scholar, I counted 480 hits for her name.

For me, this "is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia."

Thanks for your attention, gpeterw (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gpeterw: My apologies for the delay in response. As with many other Wikipedians, I look to WP:NACADEMIC for persons whose work can be described as "scholarly". But I certainly do not intend you to be limited to that set of criteria. If you believe that WP:NCREATIVE is more appropriate, then feel free to fashion an argument that looks to the criteria set forth there. But either way, I'm not seeing any demonstration of notability. Instead, I'm seeing a draft that largely asserts notability on the basis of the subject's relationship with Constance Garnett, along with a few papers on philosophy. To me, these do not demonstrate notability. But, I see that you disagree and, perhaps, so too will the next reviewer who looks at your draft. I encourage you to re-submit your draft and find out what the next reviewer thinks. If I can be of any further assistance, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Many thanks for your suggestion. I suspect you mistook the list of Duddington's own translations as her collaborative work with Garnett. I'll try to make this clearer and re-submit. Cheers gpeterw (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

18:43:47, 15 April 2017 review of submission by Rdev5

• Rdev5 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Margot Machol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

This draft has been resubmitted for review a little while ago but there still hasn't been a response on it yet. Any chance I could get someone to review it?

Thanks!

@Rdev5: As of right now, there are about 350 submissions in the queue ahead of yours. It will probably be another two weeks or so until someone gets around to taking another look at your draft. Thank you for your patience. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Matthew Whitaker

It's published by USA Today. Why does it matter who wrote it first? Sorry, but this is a distinction without a difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilwyg (talk • contribs) 12:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Response given at Draft talk:Matthew Whitaker. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 15:19:00, 17 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Hoglundandy

• Hoglundandy (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Weight Band (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am confused. My page for THE WEIGHT BAND is based on the format of DEAD AND COMPANY's page. They're very similar groups, spinoffs of legendary 70s musical acts. THE WEIGHT BAND is planning an upcoming album; would it help to reference that more? I'm just unclear why one band, which is active yet derived on a more iconic iteration is allowed, but not another? Hoglundandy (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hoglundandy: Thanks for following up on this. I took a look at the Dead & Company article and can see your concern about disparate treatment. But Wikipedia has more than 5 million user-generated articles and it is inevitable that some will exist even though they shouldn't. If it were up to me, the Dead & Co. article would be merged into the article on the Grateful Dead. Its existence as a separate article doesn't change my belief that the Weight Band should not have a separate article. However, I expect that you disagree and so too might another reviewer. I encourage you to clean up the article as best you can and re-submit it for review by another reviewer. If you decide to take this route, you might want to reconsider placing so much emphasis on events that took place before the band existed. You might also want to clean up the "Further Readings" section, because it should not duplicate any sources that are already being used as footnotes. And, you probably want to remove all of the External Links about the Band (their presence in the article really contradicts your contention that the Weight Band has separate stand-alone notability). And finally, I might not be the only reviewer who notices that your links to the Weight Band's entries in IMDB and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame are actually links to the entries for the Band. I hope this response has been helpful. Good luck with the draft. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Russian ceramics

Hello, Transhumanist. I'm writing to you because you are the only participant listed at WP:WikiProject Ceramics. Over at Articles for Creation, I've been looking at a draft for a Russian painter of ceramics, Draft:Larisa Ivanovna Grigoryeva (1920 - 1997). Although not asserted in the draft itself, the draft's creator has asserted notability on the basis of a large number of works that are held by the Hermitage Museum, for which the evidence is here. This is not the website for the Hermitage (it's for a government cataloging site), but I clicked through of a few of the examples and I'm satisfied that these works are indeed held by the Hermitage. But they apparently have never been exhibited by that museum.

And that leads to my question -- does the mere fact that the Hermitage accepted a donation of a person's work of art render that person "notable" under WP:NARTIST? By rough analogy, I wouldn't consider an American author to be notable simply because some of their books were held by the Library of Congress. Nor would I consider a British author to be notable merely on the basis of seeing some of their books in the British Library. And so, I'm left to wonder whether the same conclusion applies here.

I recognize that your interest in ceramics might not extend to Russian ceramics. But if it does, I would greatly appreciate any insights that you can provide. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

NewYorkActuary, she is featured in 250 Years of Lomonosov Porcelain Manufacture St. Petersburg: 1744-1994. That states she was a porcelain painter and worked there 1945-1987. Forty-two years is enough time to become well-established as a master, so the likelihood is high that her works have been displayed prominently somewhere. According to the guideline WP:ARTIST, an artist is notable if "the person's work has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition." So, what you need are news sources that identify her work on display in an exhibition. One significant exhibition would do. Another option is to see an antiques or museum piece dealer -- they might know where to look the individual pieces up, to see where they are currently. I checked the Met's collection, and it came up with nil. Checking the collections of every museum would be tedious and time-consuming. Art dealers may know of a shortcut. By the way, if the article passes notability, it would also be interesting to find out if any of her pieces have been auctioned off, and for how much. The Transhumanist 04:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Creating page for Draft:Brenda J. Sell

Trying, for the second time, to create a WIKI for person of interest, Brenda J. Sell.

The timeline was deleted for being plagiarized. It is an updated timeline to include recent accolades... how on earth do you write a timeline in "your own voice?" Its like, 3 words, for crying out loud. If I put someone in touch with this lady, will you allow the timeline to stay on the page? She personally charged me with creating this Wikipedia, and wants the timeline in place, and it is infuriating to think that I have to literally re-word every single line ON A TIMELINE, which is, quite literally, posted in multiple places, by her permission...

Mastercourington (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)mastercourington

@Mastercourington: Thank you for following up on this. I see that you've already converted the timeline into prose. Not only does this avoid the copyright issue, it also gives the draft a better over-all appearance. Good luck with the rest of the submission process. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Lucas Hucher

Your recent comment on the Draft:Lucas Hucher, was incorrect and insufficient. If you look after "Nicholas Middleton-Ensign" you will see an abbreviation, Ld.H., which is an acronym for Lord of the Manor of Hougun. The draft never stated that Nick Ensign was descended from British Royalty. The article simply acknowledged that Nick Ensign was a Lord of the Manor, which is not a part of British Royalty or peerage, but remains apart of the non-peerage nobility, the lowest of nobility. Also, unless you are educated on a topic, do not comment. 02:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BriantTheatre (talk • contribs)

Thank you for the comments. I guess I was misled by an earlier version of Draft:Nick Ensign, which claimed (without sourcing) that he was a baron in Cumbria. Good luck getting your drafts accepted for publication. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

You would be correct, but also incorrect at the same time. The last author to write about Nick Ensign claimed some outlandish things, that is why I removed them and replaced them with correct and supported facts. Nick Ensign, and also Lucas Hucher, are new authors and have not come into the world stage quite yet. But I would also appreciate it if you could contribute to the articles, if you have the time and are willing. But, a Feudal Baron is not part of royalty. A feudal baron is just another word for Lord of the Manor, which can also be another title for a Laird. And technically, all three titles are right below that of knight. 17:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BriantTheatre (talk • contribs)

Restoring unsourced content

Hey, could you explain why you rolled back to this (where they also removed the AfD notice) and removed sourced content? Also, it's been rather well established that Miss Grand International is not notable. Thanks! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Chrissymad: Hello, Chrissy. Thanks for following up on this. The page's primary author was wrong to remove the AfD notice and, in my very next edit after restoring the original content, I re-added that notice (I also added a citation-needed tag for the date and venue of the international pageant). As for the more basic question, there simply is no prohibition against mentioning non-notable topics in an article. Biographies of actors are permitted to mention non-notable films, biographies of authors are permitted to mention non-notable books, biographies of athletes are permitted to mention non-notable teams on which they played early (or late) in their careers. These non-notable topics might not contribute to the overall assessment of the subject's notability, but they do contribute to painting a more-complete picture of the subject. As for removing sourced content, I wasn't aware that I did that (I thought I was restoring sourced content when I restored the primary author's version of the page). If I'm mistaken about that, please let me know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

NewYorkActuary I understand about notability in notable subjects however the bigger issue here is that the claims replaced sourced content with unsourced content that was also non-notable. In this case, yes, your revision not only removed the AfD (which you did remedy) but restored both content that was irrelevant from an encyclopedic standpoint and unsourced on a BLP. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Chrissy. Thanks for getting back to me. Looking through the article history, I see that the references were removed by the other editor here. When I restored the AfD banner, I should have restored those references, as well. And, indeed, I would have if I had realized that they were removed. I've gone back and restored the one that appeared in the body of the article, but not the one that appeared in the lead. That latter reference was being used to source a statement that was already being sourced in the body of the article, so I saw no point in restoring it. But if you feel strongly about it, feel free to add it back in. Thanks again for getting back to me. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Alpha FX

@NewYorkActuary: Hello! Thank you for taking the time to provide the feedback on the draft of "Alpha FX". Would you be able to take a look at the wikipedia page of 'Global Reach Partners', another corporate foreign exchange provider? I feel the content is a lot less notable than Alpha FX and yet they have a Wikipedia page, so I must have missed something. If I know what Global Reach Partners have done right, I should be able to achieve the same for Alpha FX, as this is a much larger force in the UK foreign exchange space than Global Reach in terms of growth and plc status. Many thanks Harveyjakes (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Jake

@Harveyjakes: Thanks for following up on this. I've taken a look at that other article and agree that it, too, has not demonstrated encyclopedic notability. But that doesn't mean that an article on your company should be accepted for publication. Wikipedia has more than 5 million user-generated articles and it is inevitable that some will exist even though they should not. That other articles seems to me to be one of the very many that should not exist. Later today I will nominate it for deletion.

On a different matter, I've moved your posting from the top of this Talk page to the bottom (which is where it should have been posted). I also added a descriptive heading for it (a standard practice when starting a new conversation on a Talk page). These two things are done automatically when you click the "New section" tab that appears at the top of every person's Talk page.

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Less sass more research

Please read wiki policy before you continue to vent your opinions :) Skinduptruk (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Huggle

Hi there, there are a number of edits that you have reverted using huggle and have reported a user to the Admins however you have not warned this user enough times. Corruptcopper (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Corruptcopper. Thank you for the message. But was it really intended for me? I don't use Huggle, so I'm unsure what reversions and reports you are concerned with. If I really am the person you wanted to contact, it would be helpful if you supplied some diffs for the reversions/reports. I look forward to hearing from you. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

You Need to Know this

I'm just giving you a heads-up that, Chem-is-try7, a Wikipedian you've been reverting on this article - Chios Mastiha - has reported you for Edit Warring, but seems to have not notified you of this, as per what is stated at the top of the noticeboard, which clearly instructs users to reported those they are notifying on this noticeboard. From what I've seen, this is a matter you should attend to ASAP! GUtt01 (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Unsigned posting

Wow, I thought I knew something about computers, but I've never encountered anything as non-user friendly as trying to get an article on Wikipedia and trying to navigate around the draft section.. Holy mackerel, Wikipedia is so handy and easy to use to read article, but really tough to put up an article!! just venting here....!!!! guess I'm giving up.... sigh! Unsigned, left by User:Moleknoll 15:40 2 September 2017

@Moleknoll: I've moved your posting from the top of this Talk page to the bottom (which is where it should have been posted). I also added a descriptive heading for it (a standard practice when starting a new conversation on a Talk page). These two things are done automatically when you click the "New section" tab that appears at the top of every person's Talk page.

Regarding the substance of your posting, I'm unsure how to respond. I hope you'll stick around to help improve Wikipedia. But if your interests truly lie only in getting that one draft published, I'll understand why you might not want to stick around. Either way, if I can be of any assistance, please let me know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Spread(Intuitionism)

Your feedback was quite welcome; though very disheartening if your views are shared by all reviewers.

When most students hear about a topic that they are unfamiliar with, be it in mathematics or another subject entirely, they will usually search for a plain english explenation of that topic. Wikipedia is an excellent resource for this and it tends to be the first port of call for most students (or hobbyist scholars). While, to many people, an abstract topic such as this would be uninteresting, to someone looking for it it would be of immense use (as to how many people would seek it, that is rather chicken and egg, only if people are aware something exists will they seek it). One could use a "glazed eyes" argument for the exclusion of any topic, indeed, why not also apply such reasoning to classical literature (which no-one but literary professors read) and philosophy (which no-one but philosophers are interested in)?

I am hoping to put together a series of 5 connected articles; Bar Induction, Spreads, The Fan Theorem (a landmark result in intuitionistic mathematics), The Uniform Continuity Theorem (a landmark result in intuitionistic analysis) and Choice Sequences (a topic that already possesses a page, but one that is grossly misinformed). The reason for doing this is that intuitionistic mathematics is very well published in journals and texts, but it has not been rendered in a publically accessible format to date. This is my aim, to present a snapshot of the key topics in this fieldn in a way accessible to someone who is interested, nothing more and nothing less. While there are few "real world" applications to this subject (the only published one being the use of bar induction (when reletivised to a certain spread) in picking stocks) I believe it is worth including, the same could be argued for any literary or philosophical topic with no "real world" applications, of which Wikipedia has no shortage! In essence, the context of the article is it's place in intuitionistic mathematics.

Thank you very much for directing me to the citation standards, I shall emulate them to the best of my ability without directing users to documents that even I would shudder to read! I do intend to continue to refine this article till it is included; regardless of how long it takes.

J.f.appleby (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@J.f.appleby: Hello, J.f. My apologies for the delay in response.

When I speak of the "real world" aspects of a mathematics topic, I don't necessarily mean (for example) that it is used by an engineer to build a bridge. What I really mean is something more general. Such as -- what is the real-world history of the topic? When was it developed? Who developed it? Did it have antecedents? Was it intended to address some perceived weakness or gap in the then-current state of mathematics? And what impact did it have on the world of mathematics or the world in general? Has it influenced any further developments, whether inside or outside of its specific field? An article that consists essentially of definitions and basic results doesn't answer any of those questions. I recognize I could have communicated these concerns more clearly than I did in my initial response and I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to clarify my concerns.

Articles aimed at the general reader definitely can be written. The "Foundations of Mathematics" article over at the on-line version of the Encyclopedia Britannica does a reasonably good job of it. As does our own article on Intuitionism. In both cases, a general reader who has no interest in the topic probably won't read the article at all. But a general reader who does "take the plunge" is given a fair chance at walking away from the experience understanding something about the topic. And that's the problem I continue to see with your draft -- general readers are not going to learn anything from it, nor are they being given any reason to even try.

A friendly word of advice -- the next time you discuss this with a reviewer, you probably don't want to emphasize that the article will be helpful to mathematics students. An experienced reviewer might simply point you to the Mathematics section of Wikibooks], along with the general admonition that Wikipedia is not a text book.

I hope this discussion is helpful to you. If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

why reversing?

Hello, I working on Russian hackers book, and eventually interview their lawyers, themselves and related persons. No big deal, but i just marked you reversed my changes on ice agents escorting badb. I talked to him and to his lawyer, both confirm. I also have printed paper from dhs which badb published long time ago on vk, where it descripts how he is to be deported. When it is fact is fact,and i seen badb personally in moscow, driving car, having gun license, and not at all person who needs escort in airplane. So, please, sir, explain me the reasons why you reversed those changes. Thanks. Smartgoon (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Jason Innocent

Hi I seen you made changes to Jason Innocent. I add information to his talk page. Thank you.

Tice89 (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking for advice

Hi. I posted about a problem that I sometimes have with draft space articles and uncooperative article creators. The section I opened is here [1]. If you can help, it would be much appreciated. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI. I posted a similar request on Robert McClenon's talk page [2]. Regards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments left at WP:Articles for deletion/Bossing & Ai. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Reversal of List_of_films_featuring_time_loops

I'm surprised by this revert. If someone becomes his/her own ancestor, that would definitely qualify as a time loop, I would have thought. Can you explain how a "causal loop" is different from a "time loop"? Also, how does this particular movie not fit into the list, given that some of the other entries deal with quite similar loops? MichiHenning (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@MichiHenning: Hello, Michi. Thanks for following up on this. A discussion of this issue took place last year on the Talk page of the article. I'm not sure that the discussion reached any definitive conclusion, but reading it might give some insight into the differences that are sometimes drawn between "causal loops" and "time loops". A more direct answer to your question can be gotten from the sentence that appears at the very top of the article -- where it calls for plots that show people experiencing the "same period of time repeatedly". From the description that you gave in your edit, I didn't see how this condition had been met. But given the wide range of opinion on this topic, I'll not object to you adding the material back into the table. However, others at that article might object, and they almost certainly will object to having an unsourced entry. To avoid that problem, you'll need to find a reliable source that describes the film as a "time loop film". If you can do that, your addition will probably pass muster with the folks at that page. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Cool, thank you for the detailed reply. I'll have to watch the movie first; once I've done that, I'll see whether a search for sources would be worthwhile. MichiHenning (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Valentine Joseph

Hello. I understand why you reverted the edit to the article, with the same logic do you agree that the last edit should be reverted? Regards - Heptanitrocubane (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Overlinking

Sorry, thanks for pointing that out. I will now follow the guidlines you stated. Thank you! Phoenix53004 (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

French Guiana

Sorry about that. You were right. Ezhao02 (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

01:30:56, 31 October 2017 review of submission by Ackee123

• Ackee123 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Ackee123/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I have added more information with citations from reliable secondary sources. I was only wanting to start a stub and thought I wasn't to make it very long. There is also an LA Review of Books piece coming out about her work in December, should I leave it until then? Feeling a little demoralized after going into the live chat, the editor there seemed to have an issue with the book review that is used to cite her work as being recognized as experimental and oppositional. Not sure what to say there without discussing whether they have read this author's work or not.. I was just trying to get some help, no worries if you reject it again, will go back and look for more sources. It's late here, will chekc back another day Thanks for having looked at it when you did as wasn't expecting that so fast. Ackee123 (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Science fiction

Thanks for correcting my edit in Science fiction. I missed the mention of the Ukraine in the section. I made some other changes, especially adding and moving some pictures, but have tried not to remove anything of substance.PopSci (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Catalan Racism

I saw your MFD (and note) on Draft:Catalan Racism. Generally (at least what I do) is mark an MFD'd page as "under review" until the discussion concludes. That way it's not just sitting in the review pile. Primefac (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, NewYorkActuary. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Romeo Langford (basketball)

Thank you for replying to my request a few minutes ago. I believe my reviewer had actually left additional comments that I did not see until just now as I am still getting used to the layouts and procedures here. Thanks for the assistance! Ajdeluca4 (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC) Ajdeluca4 (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, NewYorkActuary. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Advice

Hey I didn't know who to come to for this but I need some advice on how to handle a situation. As you've probably noticed, there are IP editors who are simply undoing almost all of my edits (primarily on beauty pageant-related articles) and slandering me saying that I am spamming and that I should be blocked. This started a few weeks ago with one IP and I had them blocked almost immediately. A few days later it was a different IP, blocked again. But at this point it's happening every single day with a different IP address each day. All the IP addresses are traced back to Thailand, and I believe it started after I removed some information from the Maria Lynn Ehren article because it was unsourced and unencyclopedic, so I clearly just pissed someone off. At this point it's just extremely inconvenient and annoying, but I have no idea how to stop it as it's a new IP address each time, and I was just wondering if you had any advice on the situation. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'm looking at one of them, but I have a question for you as well: can you please remove that shading from your signature? It's hard to read. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jjj1238:} Hello, Jjj. Thanks for raising this issue. I too have been jousting for the past few days with IP addresses, but mine seem to be located in Teheran. As for your particular situation, I think that a new IP address who quickly calls for you to be blocked is probably a blocked editor themselves. And there has been a lot of blocking in this area, largely for sockpuppetry. So, you might be right that you simply annoyed someone by editing a particular article. But I wouldn't discount the possibility that you've been caught up in a larger situation involving sock farms.

As for moving forward, there's "safety in numbers". I'll put that page on my watchlist so that you don't have to be the only one reverting those edits. I do, however, have one disagreement with your edits. Although the music videos do not confer notability on the subject, they are still a valid part of the subject's biography. My concern is not that the article mentions them, but that it is essentially providing a link farm to each YouTube video. I'll look for a way to avoid this problem and I hope the IP addresses (and you) will see it as an acceptable compromise.

Looking even further down the road, I can't help believing that these disruptive editors are thriving in an environment where the Beauty Pageants WikiProject has abdicated any measure of control over the articles in their scope. The recent edit wars we saw at the 2017 Universe and World articles might have been avoided if the Project had simply taken the time to develop a Manual of Style for these types of articles. At some point (soon, I hope) the good-faith editors in this field will begin to see the Project's Talk page as a good place to develop consensus on the many questions that arise in these articles.

I don't know if I've satisfactorily addressed your concerns. If not, feel free to follow up. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'm also keeping an eye on the situation. I gave one a warning - although I noticed you gave one a "final warning" when they hadn't had a first warning. I'm monitoring & if it continues I'm going to put up a sockpuppet report. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all for the input. I just hope that this is stopped soon because it is so frustrating and disrespectful. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 03:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:M37 105mm Howitzer Motor Carriage

FYI, I used ReFill on Draft:M37 105mm Howitzer Motor Carriage. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 05:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: Thanks for doing that. I also went back and did a more complete filling-in of the details that ReFill didn't pick up. At this point, only the lack of an introduction stops this draft from appearing like a Manual-compliant article. I've released the draft back into the pool, so it can be accepted by any other reviewer. But I won't be the one to do it, for reasons I'll be happy to explain.

My expectation was that the draft's creator would remain engaged with the draft. With this in mind, I intended to drop a note on the contributor's Talk page (after accepting the draft), in which I alerted them to the very real possibility that their sources would not survive serious scrutiny. None of the web sites appear to be accepted as authoritative within the field of military history. And for the two that explicitly identify the person running the web site, neither person appears to be a recognized authority, either (i.e., no evidence of any publications other than their own web sites). My intention was to advise the contributor that anyone who looked closely at those sources would likely nominate the article for deletion and that, without upgrading the quality of the sourcing, the nomination would likely succeed. But ... the contributor hasn't maintained contact and I have no reason to believe that the sourcing would be improved after acceptance. That leaves me with the difficult decision of whether to accept a draft that, in its current form, would likely be deleted if anyone took the time to examine the sources. And I can't bring myself to do that.

I certainly don't object to the draft being accepted by anyone else and I won't be the one who will nominate it for deletion if it does get accepted. But I just can't bring myself to be the one who accepts it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately, people often don't maintain contact after even a hint of "This won't be accepted". :-( -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 02:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Garghh, this is the guy who made the article... I didn't mean to let it go, I was just extremely busy during the week and was planning to fix things this weekend! >< I've logged on several times to wikipedia to browse the citation rules, but I didn't actually touch the article itself... which is why I guess it seems that I wasn't on. I'm so sorry! I've added the main introductory paragraph, and I'll look around to see if I can find any other credible resources, but they are rare considering the vehicle is relatively unknown. Some of the sites, like the afvdb database, were used by other tank articles, so I'm a bit confused on whether or not the source would work or not. Does it work? I promise to keep working on it, though! Gargh, I'm so sorry to bother you, but advice on sources would be helpful (or a link to wherever it is on Wikipedia). Thanks! Again, I'm so sorry!! Currently looking up information in online books. I hope that's more useful... Lil'Latios (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Lil'Latios: Hello, Latios. Good to hear from you again. And congratulations on finding the Osprey source. As you already know, I've accepted the draft for publication and, with the new source, I'm hopeful of its chances of surviving a deletion nomination. A few minor points:

1. I didn't see why you identified the new source as having been published by Bloomsbury. The book itself, as well as its listing at the Library of Congress, state that it was published by Osprey. If there's a mistake here somewhere, please let me know. (And by the way, you really need to remember to use those <ref></ref> brackets for the footnotes.)
2. I expanded the lede a bit. I too have a bit of a problem writing ledes here, because all of my real-world writing experience leads me to treat them as introductions to the main text. But here on Wikipedia, they are supposed to function as "executive summaries" of the article. Hence, I added some additional material. I also changed the first sentence, because I couldn't see how the gun could have been "designed for" a war that didn't start until years after the gun went into production.
3. As for finding better sources to replace the "aficionado" sites, I recall that at least one of your sources did cite some references. So, if you can somehow get those sources (maybe via an Inter-Library loan, if that kind of thing is available to you), you will be able to "cut out the middleman" and source directly from the same reference that the aficionado used. Also, you might try asking for assistance from the good folks over at WP:WikiProject Military History. This is one of Wikipedia's better-run projects and you might find that some of the people there have those references sitting on their shelves at home. And even if they don't, it won't hurt to introduce yourself to them if you intend on working on more articles in that field.

I hope all of this is helpful. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@NewYorkActuary: Thanks! I thought the publisher was Bloomsbury, but I guess I must have misread (and ref notes, definitely remembering those. And practicing those as well!) I'll be looking up other book sources as well as seeing if I can get help from the WikiProject Military History people to see if its possible to replace those "aficando" links. I didn't like them either, but when I started, those loose sources was all I had to go off of, but now, yea, definitely seeing if I can fix those. Sorry for needing so much help... Thank you! Lil'Latios (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Roxette Qiu

Hello, NewYorkActuary. Is there any reason why you insist on using Roxette Qiu? Are you working for any public relations agencies, media consulting or some sort for Miss Universe Organization? Please explain why providing complete, credibly-sourced, encyclopedic information considered to be contempt of WP:BRD?

Evidences and references are provided. And this is NOT one time misstatement, as demonstrated by hundreds of sites and millions of documents using Roxana and Roxy, aside from Roxette. Hence can we just let all multiple names to be listed?

After posting here, I will be reverting your edit. If you restore that material without gaining consensus for it, I will report the matter to an Wikipedia executive. Thank you for your attention to this matter. User:Steinpal (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Steinpal: I've moved your posting from the top of the page down here to the bottom, which is where new Talk page postings are normally placed. This is done automatically if you start new threads by clicking on the "New section" tab at the top of the page.

In your first edit to the article in question, you described my work as "vandalism". If you truly believe that I am engaging in vandalism, you should report me at WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Your posting here also questions whether I am engaged in conflict-of-interest violations. The proper venue for reporting such problems is WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. And of course, there is the general purpose WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are concerned about problematic editing on my part, I encourage you to file a report against me in whichever of these venues you feel is most appropriate.

As for the article in question, you might want to familiarize yourself with WP:NOCONSENSUS, which essentially states that you'll need to gain consensus to add or retain biographical material after that material has been challenged. And the place to get that consensus will be the Talk page of the article, at Talk:Roxette Qiu. I expect that you will be quite willing to do this, given your testimony here that there are "hundreds of sites and millions of documents" that support your position. Perhaps you could start the Talk page discussion by linking us to just ten of those sites. If those sites are reliable sources, I imagine that gaining consensus will be a straightforward task. In the meantime, I am going to re-visit the article to present sourced information that will address both of our concerns. I hope you will view it as a reasonable compromise.

Thank you for starting this discussion. I look forward to continuing it on the article's Talk page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you + feedback request

Thank you so much for feedback on my submission of the Bugcrowd draft. Your explanation was certainly helpful and I do appreciate your time.

Do you have any suggestions for a rough number of "notable" or noteworthy sources should be included in a post to make it qualify as Notable? I'm planning to work on tracking stuff down later today and I'm wondering if there's a sweetspot or number that is a good goal to have in mind.

Really do appreciate your help. This is my first page and I'm planning to contribute more in the future, I just want to make sure I get things right :) BlueAnt (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@BlueAnt: Hello again, BlueAnt. Thanks for asking about this. There is no set number of sources that will cause a topic to be considered "notable". Instead, the better question is whether the topic itself is of encyclopedic interest and, if so, whether the "story" of that topic can be supported with reliable sources. Your draft currently devotes about half of its text to describing the funding it received. But all companies get their funding from one source or another and there is rarely anything encyclopedic about the particular sources. We can say the same thing about your draft's list of clients. A plumber working in the Los Angeles area might have many notable people as its customers, but that doesn't mean that the plumbing company gets an article on Wikipedia. And similarly for a description of your company's services -- all companies provide products and services and this, in itself, does not confer encyclopedic notability.

So, what to do? If you haven't done so already, take a look at WP:NCORP, which sets out our thinking on the notability of companies and organizations. You might also take a look at some of our better articles in the field of computer security -- such as Fortinet or Anonymous (group). As just an illustration of one of my points here, the article on Fortinet does discuss the company's funding, but it does so with just two sentences in an article that is much larger than your draft. And note also that it doesn't devote itself to a mere description of the company and its services -- it also gives reliably-sourced detail about the impact that this company has had in the real world. No one would mistake the Fortinet article as being an extension of the company's web site or its social-media campaign. On the other hand, someone might well mistake your draft for those things.

This is why I've suggested that you might want to start small and see how much of your material can find a home in the article on bug bounty programs. Over time, your company might do things that make it easier to demonstrate notability, at which point it would become easier to justify having a separate article for the company.

I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Julia Mora article

I see you guys redirected that article,but how long does that take? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daquan7474 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Daquan7474: Hello, Daquan. Thanks for asking about this. But, it hasn't been decided yet. The discussion is still on-going. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion has been closed on the administrators noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daquan7474 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Disappointed by your recent comments on Political midlife crisis talk page, which I'm deleting.

Please read WP: No Personal Attacks in full, which explains why I'm responding here and not on the article talk page. Crawiki (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: Response given here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion dealing with Burma/Myanmar Railways

An article that you may have been involved in editing—Myanmar Railways—has been proposed for merging with Rail transport in Myanmar. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. --Bejnar (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Ariana Miyamoto

Hi New YorkActuary. Just so to clarify, her actual height is the value that I edited. I downgraded her predecessor's height as well. You can check her official height given at Miss Universe 2014. My apologies. Lhopshe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Lhopshe: I've moved your posting from the top of the page down here to the bottom, which is where new Talk page postings are normally placed. This is done automatically if you start new threads by clicking on the "New section" tab at the top of the page. Also, please remember to sign your postings on Talk pages by adding four tildes (i.e., ~~~~) at the end of the posting.

As for the original issue, I think you're missing a basic point about editing here on Wikipedia -- simply being correct is not enough. Nor is it enough to tell someone that they can go look it up for themselves. Instead, you need to demonstrate that you are correct by adding a reference to the material that you are relying upon. You can learn more about doing this at WP:Referencing for beginners. And if the source of your information is the Miss Universe web site, then you probably want to do that by using the {{cite web}} template. That template can be a little tricky for new editors so, later today, I'll go ahead and add the reference to the Miyamoto article. You can then use it as an example for adding references in other articles.

One last point -- you might not be aware of this, but articles on pageant winners are subject to a lot of vandalism. And much of that vandalism takes the form of changing the subject's personal data. Indeed, if you look at your edit history, you'll see that your edits were tagged with a message that said something like "change made to height or weight". This happens so often that many editors here (including me) routinely revert these changes if they are not accompanied by an explanation or by a reference. I did see that one of your edits (on another article) changed what was clearly an inaccurate number, but the one at the Miyamoto article is not so obvious and really needs to be supported by documentation.

I hope this has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tax haven

You engagement with other editors in this discussion would be invaluable.Leutha (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: Response given on 8 January 2018. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for help from an unexperienced contributor

Hi, I noticed that you are an experienced Wikipedia contributor and some time ago you edited in good faith a article about Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. During the holiday period an IP clearly affiliated with this party has heavily edited this page as well as page of it's founder Bob Avakian and their offshoot Refuse Fascism. Most of these edits put the party in positive light, whitewash, remove criticisms etc, most are sourced from websites directly affiliated with the part.. These are the only articles the IP edits. When I tried to revert these edits I got a warning for engaging in edit warring, which was probably the case, since I don't really know the rules that well yet. The recommendation was to start a discussion on the talk page, which I did in Refuse Fascism article, but my pleads were ignored. I would like to ask you to take a look at the article in question and see if those edits are legitimate/illegitimate and proceed accordingly. Because they do look like a politically motivated PR move from Party staffer/recruit. Thank you.FreedomGonzo (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@FreedomGonzo: Hello, Gonzo. My apologies for the delay in response. The holiday season left me little time to work on Wikipedia and I am only now digging out of the backlog.

When I took a look at the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA article, my first thought was that you and the IP addresses were all wasting your time, because the article faced the bigger problem of being primarily sourced by its own publications. Of the fifteen sources in the article, nine are from the organization's website and three more are from people associated with the party. Such reliance on its own statements is the bigger problem (I thought) because it made the article vulnerable to being nominated for deletion. But then I learned that the article had indeed been nominated about three months ago by someone who apparently saw the same things that I did. The deletion debate, shown at WP:Articles for deletion/Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, ended in a "keep" decision, because three editors presented third-party sourcing sufficient to convince the closing administrator that the organization was notable. Unfortunately, little (if any) of that third-party sourcing has found its way into the article.

As for your particular concern, jousting with an IP-hopping agenda-driven editor can easily become a frustrating experience. But because I am not sufficiently learned in the details of the Party (including what appears to be a controversy surrounding its founder), I am not in a position to make any informed judgements on the quality of the IP's edits. Nor, for that matter, am I in any position to make any informed judgements about yours. But I can offer two suggestions that might be helpful.

First, I saw that there are several citation-needed and better-source-needed tags on the article. One thing you can do is adopt a zero-tolerance approach to unsourced controversial information (and by "zero tolerance", I mean to simply remove it). I do NOT recommend that you do this in one fell swoop. Instead, remove one unsupported claim at a time (waiting a few days in between) and prepare yourself for the pushback that you are likely to get from the IP address. But if the IP address refuses to engage in discussion on the matter, and if you are mindful of not violating the restrictions on edit-warring, you will find that administrators will likely support the removal of that material.

The second thing you can do is to place the entire article on a more scholarly footing. One thing that came out of the deletion discussion was that the Party is the subject of a chapter in a book that can be read on Google and that it was also the subject of a book that can be viewed (in part) at Amazon.com (and I noticed that the authors of this book also have another relevant one at Amazon, though I didn't look too closely at it). Assuming that the authors of these three books are not affiliated with the Party, you ought to have enough material to cobble together a history of the Party that doesn't use first-party sourcing at all. And as for the contentious material about its founder, you can treat that in journalistic fashion by describing the nature of the controversy and giving both sides equal treatment in expressing their views (and, here, it is appropriate to use first-party material, so long as the source is given in-text attribution, such as "So-and-so says that ...").

All of this will take time and effort, but the result will be an informative article that no one would ever consider nominating for deletion. I hope this has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		I have been following along on all the cleanup and maintenance work you've done on List of mathematics competitions over these months. Such work is not glamorous, but was very much needed. Nice work! --Mark viking (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

hi

Good afternoon, I would like to ask for your help to edit a Draft: Israel Lucas Góis Monteiro, if I help? several references follow.

Let's put this article on the air.

REDACTED list of twelve external links, viewable here

— Preceding unsigned comment added by WksBolteditor (talk • contribs) 13:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@WksBolteditor: Hello, WksBolteditor. Thank you for asking. But I'm not interested in working on that article. I see that you've already submitted Draft:Israel Lucas Góis Monteiro for review at the Articles for Creation project and I wish you the best of luck with that. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for help

Would you take a look at this? It's about a disagreement and how to proceed. I'm making an honest effort. If you're busy, I understand. Thanks.
–Vmavanti (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Vmavanti: Good to hear from you again. And sorry to see that you've been having a tough time at that discussion. Indeed, I salute your ability to remain calm in the face of that disagreement.

Truth be told, I lost interest in Zappa by the '80s. To me, the "real" Zappa is what he was doing during his Hot Rats / WakaJawaka / Grand Wazoo period. And if memory serves, we did tend to call that stuff jazz rock. So, seeing Zappa's discography labeled as something of interest to the Jazz WikiProject doesn't strike me as odd. But more to the point, the people on the other side of your debate are being quite reasonable when they say that the scope of a project is something that's decided by the participants themselves, and not by sources. (Indeed, that position is consistent with the basic guidance given at WP:WikiProject Council/Guide#Identify the best scope.) I do see your point about increasing the efficiency of the Project's work by limiting its scope to core "jazz" topics. But this is an argument that must be won by persuasion, and not by logic.

I think the far more fractious debate would be whether the Frank Zappa article should appear in Category:American jazz guitarists. His name does not appear in the List of jazz guitarists and I think there's a reasonable argument for not including his biography in the jazz-guitarist category, either. But, you'll almost certainly get pushback from people if you try to remove the article from that category, so much so that a Request for Comments might be the only feasible approach for achieving that result.

I hope this has been helpful. Good luck with the discussion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I have no feelings about Zappa. I never met the guy. I should have said that what I really want to know is the quality of my approach to the debate. Am I debating correctly? What about my use of sources? Shouldn't the debate address the sources and passages I have mentioned? Today I gave three solid ones, but they haven't even been touched. Instead, lots of name calling and childish outbursts. Aren't we Wikipedia editors supposed to use these sources as the basis for judgment? I spent a lot of time yesterday and today reading, underlining, writing, and, it should go without saying, thinking. I presented my side of the debate in clear, neutral language. The particular subject is not a big deal. It means nothing to me. I want to know if I am approaching debate correctly, whether I have the rules right, or whether there are any rules. Perhaps the problem is that I'm dealing improperly with people who are very young chronologically or emotionally or both. Perhaps that is the book I ought to read.
–Vmavanti (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Vmavanti: Your follow-up raises several questions, but I think you've summarized them nicely when you ask "if I am approaching [the] debate correctly". And frankly, no, I don't think you are. I reach this opinion because you look to be attempting to use sources the "prove" something that is essentially unprovable. The guidance linked in my first response tells us that the scope of a WikiProject can be defined arbitrarily, though there is also a suggestion that the definition be sensible. And so, I see the issue as whether it makes sense for the Jazz project to declare an interest in articles whose subject matter doesn't fall within a strict definition of "jazz" itself. That's the discussion that you need to have with the other editors, and it will be a discussion that will require much more in the nature of persuasion than it will for proof.

I see that you've already raised the issue at the Talk page of the Jazz project. That strikes me as the right place to have the discussion. I doesn't look like you'll prevail there, but I continue to wish you the best of luck with it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

This caught my attention the first time and you repeated it, so I have to ask how you distinguish between proof and persuasion. It's the kind of distinction a well-educated man would make. I have found persuasion impossible in real life and on Wikipedia. I'm unwilling to engage in the dark arts that work today to persuade someone, about which much has been written and about which I have seen more than I wanted. Although I find myself unpersuasive, I consider myself persuadable and still capable of changing my mind. Thanks for the replies.Vmavanti (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Vmavanti: "Dark arts"? It seems I've inadvertently triggered some strong reactions by using the word "persuasion". Sorry 'bout that. My intention was purely mundane. I meant merely that, rather than trying to prove that your position is right and theirs is wrong, you might do better by arguing that the workings of the Jazz project would be improved if it adopted your position. If "persuasion" is not a good word for this, how about "sales pitch"? NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No offense taken. Ignore that comment. I was thinking of something else. I thought I was being persuasive by presenting the sources as plainly as possible, but I don't know how to respond to nonsense and psychological projection. I can neither help people read nor do their thinking for them. I find most people unreasonable. They don't come to their arguments through reason and so reason is alien to them. Their justifications amount to "I want". To me that has always seemed like an unmovable wall. It might be a mistake for people to write and edit subjects about which they have strong feelings, because then they have trouble being impartial. Generally I have managed to avoid writing and editing subjects about which I have strong feelings, though it's easy because there are so few. I'm always surprised when I face strong emotional reactions to trivial matters. People here will go to war over a comma. But then I come back to "I want". One's own desires and one's own ego can often seem like the most important subject in the history of mankind.

More practically, perhaps, I have tried to explain how many jazz articles there are and how much work needs to be done and how it benefits everyone if Wikiproject Jazz were reduced to articles about jazz. I have also tried to explain the value of knowing what jazz is and how stretching the definition too far makes it meaningless, that readers are harmed by false definitions, and that subjectivity is not equal to arbitrariness. I have repeatedly reassured people that I'm not making a moral or value judgment and that it's OK to like whatever music you want. But I think because jazz has become elevated into some kind of religion, people attach themselves to it in the hope of elevating themselves, something that used to happen more often in classical music. So now everyone's me-tooing jazz. To say "not jazz" is to be accused of running a restricted club. Ironically, I think jazz is far less important and precious than my detractors do. I suspect I am older than many people here. I'm going to read more about how a Wikiproject is supposed to work.
–Vmavanti (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:SMACK_Stack

Thank you for the feedback on the submission. I've answered the concerns under the original feedback but before the article body -- is that acceptable? The draft was corrected as instructed. Please let me know whether further enhancements are needed, and what's the best way to conduct a dialogue, here or in the draft body or the talk page for the draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setuporg (talk • contribs) 21:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Setuporg: Hello, Setup. Thank you for following up on this. My apologies for the delay in response. Before responding to your questions, I'll note that you should always sign your postings on other people's Talk pages. You can do this by typing four tildes (i.e., ~~~~) after the message. There also is a button at the bottom of the edit screen that will do this for you.

I think the problem here is a lack of familiarity with the basic elements of writing for Wikipedia. You say you've "answered the concerns" that I raised, but you've only made them worse. Right now, all of the links in your draft appear in the text of the draft, and they all take the reader outside of Wikipedia. This is what we call an "in-article external link" and none of them should appear there. If a particular link is intended to prove the accuracy of a statement, then that link should be converted into a footnote reference, as explained in WP:REFB. If a link was intended only to introduce the reader to the website of a person or organization, then that link should be removed (because a Wikipedia article is not intended to serve as a web portal). Cases that fall in between might appropriately be placed in a separate "External Links" section at the end of the article. But, to repeat, none of those links should appear in the main text.

If you haven't already done so, I encourage you to read WP:Your first article and WP:NSOFTWARE. I also encourage you to work through our WP:Tutorial and, after doing that, take a look at Microsoft Security Essentials (one of our best-written articles on software) to see how all of these principles and techniques are carried out in practice.

Finally, the tone of your submission veers away from "encyclopedic". At some points, you address the reader in a conversational tone, and this type of writing is not used on Wikipedia.

I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Abkhazia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abkhazia. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

National Sweetheart

Hi there. I'd like to ask you to take a fresh look at the deletion debate on the National Sweetheart pageant. I think you were too quick on the draw with the Redirect opinion there; please do take another few minutes searching for sources and checking the ones I list and do revise your opinion if you feel it is called for. Carrite (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Carrite: Thanks for the note. When the article was nominated, it looked like it was going to turn into one of those discussions that sees one "Delete per nom" after another. So I went into defensive mode to salvage what I could of the material. But who would've thought that the article might be saved by a deus ex Carrite? And so, yes, I'll take a closer look at your sources later today. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Oldest cats list

Hello NYA. I just figured out how to navigate to this talk page so please bear with me as I am in new territory. I did receive a request to complete the copyright on the documents I used to confirm Poon's date of birth and current proof of life. Does that satisfy your concerns?

I agree with other contributors that cats without documentation of age should not be on this list. However, the rigor of the documentation often is only a dated link to a news article that surmises the age of the cat listed. That is the reason I submitted actual documents for this particular cat...