Jump to content

User talk:NewYorkActuary

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BriantTheatre (talk | contribs) at 02:27, 7 July 2017 (I told him off). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

Draft:Ravensbourne Morris Men

Thanks for your recent input. I have re-written the history section to avoid any possibility of 'taint' as per your suggestion. Another reviewer Ntb613 has stated that they are ready to accept and publish the entry following a serious of amendments that I have made as long as you are now content with the changes I have made to this section to address the issue you raised. If you are, and have a spare moment, it would be really helpful if you could indicate accordingly on their or my talk page. My talk or Ntb613 talk Many thanks. CPBearfoot (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CPBearfoot: I'll be happy to take a look at the revised version. However, it's unlikely I can get to it today. I'll commit to getting comments back to you and Ntb613 either tomorrow or the day after. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Perennial Math

Thanks for your quick help in making me understand this platform. It will really great, if you can suggest what more should I do to make this article live.

Thanks Aankitmishra (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aankitmishra: Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. As for improving the draft, I have only the same suggestion made by others -- you need to find reliable third-party sources that discuss the organization and that do so in depth. Without that, there is little chance of the draft ever becoming a Wikipedia article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Blank Banshee

Hey there, any idea what's going on with Draft:Blank Banshee ? As far as references go his (unpublished) article is now more comprehensive than several of his contemporaries' published articles ( see Vektroid see Saint Pepsi ) which is bizarre. I feel I have submitted my draft an excessive amount of times yet also strongly feel that it satisfies the notability guidelines for musicians (I have made myself familiar with WP:MUS, WP:BIO ). I do not anticipate any admins or editors would take issue with Draft:Blank Banshee being moved to the article space at this point. Michael lone2004 (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Michael. I see your point about the comparison with the other two articles, but it seems to me that those other two articles shouldn't exist, either. I doubt that either one would survive a deletion nomination. As to your own draft, you'll need to demonstrate which of the criteria under WP:MUS is being met. If you feel that the draft does meet one or more of those criteria, your best option will be to start a discussion on the Talk page of the draft, where interested reviewers will be able to provide commentary. If you do so, be sure to specify which criteria is being addressed and also point out which material in the article supports your claim. I hope this was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lot of discussion about it, as far as I can see this article was first proposed in 2014 at which time conditions surrounding the subject's notability would not have been sufficient for inclusion on wikipedia. But at this point, citing the section referencing composers and performers outside mass media traditions, it states they may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria: Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture. Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching for a particular music genre. Is cited by reliable sources as having established a tradition or school in a particular music genre. Has been listed as a significant musical influence on musicians or composers who meet the above criteria. The subject of my article certainly meets all those criteria. This can be verified by checking the references on Draft:Blank Banshee. So I guess my question is what else needs to be done at this point? Do you have the power to publish this article or is there a protocol i'm overlooking. I am somewhat new to wikipedia so forgive me if I come across ignorant, I'm just trying to understand what stands in the way of this article's publication. Michael lone2004 (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael lone2004: My apologies for the delay in response. I remain unconvinced that the subject has satisfied the notability requirements and so, at this point, your better option is to convince some other reviewer. To this end, I'll open up a discussion on the Draft's Talk page and leave a note on the draft itself directing other reviewers to it. I'll ping you when this has been done (it'll take just a few minutes). By way of friendly advice, I suggest that your argument at that discussion be something more than a mere declaration that the notability guidelines have been met. Most reviewers will want to know which particular sources are being used to satisfy which particular criterion under the guidelines. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:10:09, 2 December 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Mo13Jan


Hi, My article is in English and is about a site in Japan. My article is a translated summary of the Japanese Wikipedia article. Can I use references that are in Japanese? I look forward to your reply. Thanks.

Mo13Jan (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mo13Jan: Yes, you can use references that are in Japanese, although English language references are preferred. This topic is discussed in more detail at WP:Verifiability#Non-English sources. By the way, if your draft is based on a translation of a Japanese Wikipedia article, that fact needs to be disclosed on the draft's Talk page. You can do so using the {{Translated page}} template. I'll be happy to add that template for you, if you'll let me know the title of the Japanese article that you used. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Nehemiah Corporation of America

On 6 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nehemiah Corporation of America, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "mend it, don't end it" was advice given by the president of the Nehemiah Corporation of America to the U.S. Congress at a hearing on down payment assistance? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nehemiah Corporation of America. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Nehemiah Corporation of America), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance with Draft:Goji Food Solutions article

Hi NewYorkActuary,

Following up on your answer to my request here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=758443190 You said you wanted to add some feedback to the article's talk page and how it can be improved. Sorry for bothering you again but I am a little bit hanging on the because the Help Desk seems to have me forgotten again :-(

Thanks in advance!

Visrajmathan 0614 (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Visrajmathan 0614: My apologies for forgetting about my promise. Immediately after posting this, I'll head over to your draft. I should have comments posted there in a few minutes. Again, please accept my apologies. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

02:27:40, 10 February 2017 review of submission by 2600:8803:7A00:19:B1D6:A74D:9E61:CFB3


The Reference is not a dead link get this article in now. 2600:8803:7A00:19:B1D6:A74D:9E61:CFB3 (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Posting copied to the Articles for Creation Help Desk for February 10, 2017 NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Party of Communists USA

Draft:Party of Communists USA

There are 6 outside, independent and verifiable sources on the Party of Communists USA wiki draft.

The sources include an international news agency, Sputnik News, among other references.

There are no references to the Party of Communists USA. All 6 references are outside sources.

Can you please inform me how this page is not being approved?

Dragunsky1922Dragunsky1922 (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

response given at AfC Help Desk, February 24. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the article recently? It is very long now, packed full of information. I think you might have checked it last night, because it is more-or-less an entirely new Wikipedia article at this point in time.

Dragunsky1922 (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

additional response given at AfC Help Desk, February 24. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:50:49, 7 March 2017 review of submission by 68.102.39.189


Regarding Draft:National Savings Certificate (Bangladesh)

All the information is factual and nowhere reader is recommended to subscribe or not subscribe the scheme (in direct or indirect words), what makes it appear like an "advertisement"? Instead of out rightly rejecting the article, can you suggest some modifications that will make sure that it does not read like an "advertisement". I welcome your suggestion regarding -"the focus of the article needs to be much more about the system's role in the overall Bangladeshi investment sector". However in my opinion the mentioned suggestion can and should form a sub-section of the article rather than the central focus. Also, once this article is up on wikipedia, Bangladesh Economy Scholars can make the required additions which I alone may not be able to and need not do. Please post your comments. Effort will be made to include your constructive inputs, if no constructive suggestions are available, I plan to re-submit the same article. -Ysp2015(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@YSp2015: My apologies for the delay in response. As to your concerns, Wikipedia tends to use the word "advertising" in a broader sense that you seem to understand it. My concern with the draft is that its main section looks like little more than an extension of the web site that advertises the certificates. I don't doubt the accuracy of your restatement of the eligibility conditions and the projected yields to maturity, but I question whether an article that is largely devoted to those details truly belongs in an encyclopedia. I expect that you disagree and, if so, I encourage you to re-submit the draft and get the opinion of another reviewer. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging again. @Ysp2015: NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donovan -Mellow Yellow

Good Day NewYorkActuary. I noted that you have made a couple of edits to the Donovan article Mellow Yellow. I had recently added references where citations were needed, but like you, I could not verify that Paul McCartney had played bass on the song Mellow Yellow. I was giving myself an extra day to see if I could find verification from another source, this I could not do, and you had already made changes to the article. As a rookie (my opinion) editor, I do have a question to pose if I could. Under "External links", the "Donovan Unofficial Site" is listed. Can this be also used as an acceptable reference? I wish to use it as a reference for the musicians, or I could just list the musicians without a reference. Some of the information regarding the musicians is also available from other sources that may be deemed as unacceptable. There is another error in the article regarding John Paul Jones' contributions, that I haven't been able to correct yet.

By the way, I have noticed that many, many music articles are in need of some refinement, and I am endeavoring to tidy some of them up. So I thank you in advance for a response so that I may continue to contribute accurately, Frankzappatwin (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Frankzappatwin: It's good to see you working to refine our music articles. All too many of them contain poorly-sourced material and there's almost no end to the cleaning up that that needs to be done. Thank you for working on them.

As for your specific questions, the best place to discuss the reliability of sources for an article is on the Talk page of the article. However, this particular album article seems to have generated no discussion whatsoever since it was created, so I don't think there will be much of a discussion even if you do try to start one. My opinion is that an unofficial fan site is not a reliable source and should not be used as a reference. Indeed, I don't think the site in question should even appear as an external link (the guidelines for which also call for the site to be reliable). But one of the nice things about some fan sites is that they can serve as useful starting points for finding good sources. And that's the case here with the McCartney fact -- the site mentions Donovan's autobiography as a source. So, why not just use the autobiography as the source? The link for it at Google Books is [1]. I think that this is a much better source than AllMusic and, if you agree, you might want to use the autobiography instead and format it with the {{cite book}} template (you'll need to go to the early pages of the Google copy to get the relevant bibliographic detail). As for the musician credits in general, some of it might be sourceable to the autobiography, but you might also try looking at modern-day CD compilations, which oftentimes include reliable liner notes or track listings that give detailed performance credits. Unfortunately, Donovan's own web site doesn't provide this information and you can't use Discogs.com as a reliable source, so finding this information, even if it exists, might be easier said than done.

I hope this response has been helpful. Feel free to ask follow-up questions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:46:26, 13 March 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by 68.102.39.189


There's Already one page Conference USA Football the draft version has to go. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

68.102.39.189 (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please Suggest

Draft:Snehalaya Gwalior Children's Charity

The two sections of my draft have been removed stating that it has verbatim copied from page 76 of http://soulsteer1.blogspot.co.uk/. Please let me know, Is there any way I can add the removed section or any 3rd party reference is needed for the magazine?Is it possible to submit the present draft as final for review or should I make any more changes?

``````````` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvseshwary (talk • contribs) 12:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvseshwary: Thank you for following up on this. The reason I removed those sections is because you copied the text from the sources. Doing this created a copyright violation and the material had to be removed. So, no, it is not possible to add it back. The information can be added back, but only if it is rewritten in such a way that its wording is very different than the wording used in the original. But even if you do so, you will still be facing the problem of relying on material produced by the organization itself. There's nothing wrong about doing that, but you cannot then say that you're using reliable independent sources for your article. And that is going to be a problem when reviewers start asking whether this organization has enough "notability" to merit an article. As for your final question -- yes, you can resubmit in its current form, but the next reviewer is going to be asking the same types of questions that were asked by the reviewer who already declined your submission. In particular, you haven't really made clear whether this article is going to be about the UK-based charity or the India-based school. And whichever choice you make, the reviewers are going to be asking whether the organization or school has received significant coverage from reliable independent sources. I think you are still going to have some work to do in satisfying the next reviewer. And finally, you really do need to do something about the ridiculously large number of references that you added to the final section of the draft (that's what the reviewer meant when he wrote about WP:CITEKILL and WP:BOMBARD). I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan Lydia Ansel

I too received email from ChrisMarks1928, which made me take a closer look at what they have been up to. You might find Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chris M Pattinson interesting. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

01:24:23, 22 March 2017 review of submission by 185.10.224.66


Please help me what to do ???

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,[1] 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://scholar.google.ch/scholar?start=0&hl=en&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&cites=8705607157051355504&scipsc=

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)[reply]

Aloysius Scrimshaw

i noticed someone is seeding various articles with this name in an attempt to self-promote, fails notability, so the AFD is warranted, was going to change to speedy, hence removal, hadn;t seen that the AFD had been placed already, it wasn't there when I first visited the page. Acousmana (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Acousmana: I share your sentiments but, unless the AfD nominator chooses to withdraw the nomination, that process will need to play itself out. If you haven't already done so, you might want to register your thoughts at the AfD. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Holliday

In the fall of 2014, I left detailed comments on the talk page of the Jessie Holliday article, along with a request that the creator of the page do something to improve it. He has since been banned for disruptive editing. I would like to suggest that the article be removed: not sufficiently notable; no sources; and demonstrably inaccurate information. But I'd LOVE to know where the author got his info!!! The few facts that I have been able to verify since 2014 are correct. So what's his source?

Is this your ball park? Many thanks, gpeterw (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gpeterw: I don't have a clue where that guy got his information. And from reading your comments on the article's Talk page, I get the impression that you already know more about the subject than did the now-blocked editor. I took a look at the guy's Talk page and saw that he was getting a lot of complaints about various unsourced articles, so it seems to have been a recurring problem for him. There's not much more that I can add, except to point you to a listing of items at HathiTrust. That listing is here, but I don't think that all of them are for your Jessie Holliday. I hope it helps. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As suggested above, I have proposed the article for deletion on the grounds that the subject is not sufficiently notable; the article identifies no sources; and contains demonstrably inaccurate information.gpeterw (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Videoart at Midnight

Hi NewYorkActuary, don't you think that's an important information, if a cultural event is for free and an open forum? Especially in a cinema? I don't think it's an advertorial sentence. It's more a further explantation for "non-profit". Anthology Archive in NYC for example is also non-profit but asks for admission for their events and films. Best Bueschinger (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bueschinger. Thanks for asking about this. Discussion of prices is discouraged under item No. 5 of WP:NOTCATALOG. Perhaps you feel that this provision does not apply here, or perhaps you feel that your article should be an exception. In either case, feel free to add the sentence back in -- I don't intend to edit-war with you about it. But frankly, I think a sentence that says (in effect) "Hey, folks -- we're open to the public. Come on down ... it's free!" is going to attract the attention of editors who look for articles to delete. If you believe that your article can survive a deletion nomination, then perhaps the sentence will not be a problem. Whatever your decision, I wish you good luck with your article and with your cinema. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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


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)[reply]

Henny Youngman

Why would you remove Henny from category "Jewish Comedians"??? His belated Bar Mitzvah is well documented by hundreds of mainstream nees outlets: there can be zero reasonable doubt that Henny was Jewish. Henny often used his Jewish heritage as a source of performance material - over his 70 years of performances, he mentioned his Jewish background in almost every performance (and since he rarely did only a single performance in a single day, often doing three and occasionally as many as 6-8 per day, he provably talked about his Jewish upbringing and/or heritage with between 25,000 and 500,000 people ***in person***! If you add in all the people who watched film, or video, he personally told MILLIONS of people he was Jewish. Your removal makes no sense. Measl (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Measl:. Thanks for asking about this. My removal of that category was not based on any doubts as to Youngman's heritage. It was based on the rule under WP:SUBCAT, which calls for placing articles in the most-specific categories that apply to the article. Here, Youngman is already categorized as an "American Jewish comedian", which is a sub-category of "Jewish comedians". Because the Youngman article is already in the sub-category, the rules of WP:SUBCAT tell us to leave it out of the "parent" category. I hope this response was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Non-diffusing categories

Hi. Please don't remove Category:American films. It's non-diffusing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08:57:24, 2 May 2017 review of submission by Edward.stocker123


Hi There,

Thanks for recently reviewing my Elizabeth Grant submission! You stated you were declining for now but would accept when the citations needed were addressed. Could you please briefly give a little more detail into what I need to change on the article?

Many Thanks, Ed

Hello, Ed. Thanks for following up on this. By "addressing the citation-needed tags", I meant that the tagged statements should either be sourced or removed. There are three such statements in your draft, all identified by the super-scripted "citation needed" notices that appear at the end of each statement. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Is it OK if I copy and paste the section of helpful links from your user page to mine? It would be handy.
–Vmavanti (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vmavanti. Good to hear from you again. Of course it's okay to copy those links. And they sure do come in handy. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

05:07:29, 9 May 2017 review of submission by 124.177.160.111


I spoke to the Subject about this and he doesn't want to be on Wikipedia anyway, as most judges/jurists are not listed for obvious reasons. Can you please remove this draft?

The easiest way to remove a draft is for the author to request its deletion by placing the {{db-author}} template at the top of the draft. Under normal circumstances, the "tagged" draft will be deleted within a few hours. However, there might be a problem in this particular case -- the "db-author" tag is used only when a draft has been written by a single author. In your case, the draft has been written by various IP addresses and the administrator who responds to the deletion request might or might not believe that all of those IP addresses represent the same person. I suppose there's no harm in making the request but, if it fails, your next step would be to request deletion via a "nomination" (for which see WP:MFD). The third approach is to simply do nothing -- drafts that have not been worked on in more than six months become eligible for deletion, and that deletion can be requested even by people who were not the sole authors of the draft. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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


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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Misplaced message from User WDSFP

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and I have written my first article which has received feedback. Now after editing the draft further I hope to get it reviewed, but it hasn't been reviewed yet (April 2017 is when i submitted it for review). I do not know all too well if this is normal or if I have done something wrong. Please understand that I am not familiar with all the procedures yet and am hence worried.

Sincerely

WDSFP

@Wdsfp: Hello, Wdsfp. Because you originally added this message to one of my Talk page archives, I did not see it until today. I assume you are asking about Draft:Zhong Yun Long which, at the time you left your message, had not yet been reviewed. These days, the number of submissions at Articles for Creation is very large and it commonly takes more than a month before a submission is reviewed. However, I do see that your draft was reviewed a few days after you posted your message here. Although the reviewer declined the submission, they did leave some advice that might help you improve it. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Suggested

Ok Also Jakarta is Bunga's Hometown now. And She places in 1st runner up best swimsuit in Supermodel Asia Pacific 2011. Tarorenaba (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Mauricio de Maio

Hi! I recently made a change in the Mauricio de Maio article. I thought that it was better without that text section since it might be relating the subject too much with Allergan, which is not the case nowadays. But since I saw on the Talk:Mauricio_de_Maio that the notability is still borderline I will work on more source materials. He has other books written that I could not source propperly. Anyways, thanks for still watching the page. I'll keep working on it to make it better.

Cheers - LannaM (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico is a subsidiary of the US Gov't

The government pays for puerto rico's debts. Therefore it is a subsidiary, the Government subsidizes puerto's cost — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetechwizard21 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thetechwizard21: Thanks for following up on this. That's a rather novel theory you've constructed. Feel free to propose it on the article's Talk page, Talk:Puerto Rico, to see if other editors on that page agree with it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I made some edits to include a link in "ontology alignment" and "lightweight ontology", why did you remove them? The link under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)#Editor was especially relevant. Why did you not remove the other 25 links to editors? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgeorg (talk • contribs) 14:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Knowledgeorg. Thanks for following up on this. I removed your newly-added links because I believe them to be WP:LINKSPAM (i.e., links added to articles for the purpose of promoting a product). There was the additional matter that these links were being added to the main text of the article, something that is generally not permitted (see the first paragraph of WP:EXT). As for the other links in the articles, I have formed no opinion on them. If you feel that any of them should not be included, feel free to remove them yourself (but I would respectfully caution you against removing "wiki-links" to other articles here on Wikipedia). I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledgeorg (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Please can you suggest a method that I can document these facts: - treemerge.io is a lightweight ontology editor. - treemerge.io is a ontology alignment tool.[reply]

@Knowledgeorg: The best way to ensure that your product can be mentioned in these other articles is for the product to have its own Wikipedia article. Then, by implication, it will be notable enough for inclusion on the lists in those other articles. As for documenting whether the software performs a specific function, that it something that can be addressed in its own article, along with all of the other things that can be said about the product. But writing a new article can be a challenge for a new editor. You might want to start by working through our WP:Tutorial and by reading WP:Your first article. Good luck with it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

@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)[reply]

Timmins (surname) article

Hi NYA, many thanks for your advice on the Timmins surname article, which has been actioned. I am following up on your comment of a technical edit regarding reclassifying the article. Being a newbie this is currently beyond my knowledge, could you please help. Thanks Tony. Tonytea51 (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tonytea51: When I saw that a third editor had gone ahead with the merge, I went ahead and did the technical edits (plus some copy edits). So, there's nothing more that needs to be done. Congratulations on the publication. I hope you'll stick around to work on some more articles. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NewYorkActuary&oldid=789395569"