User talk:NewYorkActuary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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

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)

Draft:Lucas Hucher[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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 (talkcontribs)

Valentine Joseph[edit]

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)

Page mover granted[edit]

Wikipedia page mover.svg

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:

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)

New Page Reviewing[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
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)


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)

Roxette Qiu[edit]

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)

Julia Mora article[edit]

I see you guys redirected that article,but how long does that take? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daquan7474 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 07:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

No personal attacks[edit]

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[edit]


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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (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)


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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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)

National Sweetheart[edit]

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[edit]

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... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtistEscape (talkcontribs) 23:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@ArtistEscape: Hello, Artist. Thanks for following up on this. The question of using those documents is currently being discussed on the Talk page of the article (at Talk:List of oldest cats). And as I point our there, the concern is not with copyrights, it is with the more-basic question of whether it is permissible to use unpublished documents as sources here on Wikipedia. I encourage yo to join that discussion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Response to question re: Henny Youngman[edit]

Hello NewYorkActuary, Thank you for explaining the various heirarchical "Jewish" tagging from the Henny Youngman article - it completely answered my question, and it made a lot of sense as well! Sorry it took so long to reply, I don't edit very often, however you should rest assured that I am grateful for your edit, and you taking the time to educate me as to why. All the best, /s/ Measl. Measl (talk) 04:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: This is a response to the discussion at User talk:NewYorkActuary/2017#Henny Youngman NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hark Hark The Dogs Do Bark has been accepted[edit]

Hark Hark The Dogs Do Bark, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark[edit]

Per your comment at AfC, it is time to create the redirects! Fantastic work, I'm really impressed. This should appear on the front page at DYK, what do you think? I'll do the work. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@78.26: Thank you for the kind words. I'll get to the re-directs later today. As for DYK, I was going to first submit this for GA and then (if it got that status) nominate for DYK as a GA-class article. But I have no objections to your doing an earlier DYK nomination. Thanks again for the kind words. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Nope, let's wait for the GA if you're willing to do the work, it will be in even better condition then. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Noel Ashman[edit]

Thanks for the guidance on the page. One of the questions you raised was the notability of the references. Most of the recent articles have been from standard sources - NYTimes, NY POST, etc. How do we account for older press that was available offline in hard copies of People, NY Mag, Vanity Fair etc? I've tried finding online versions, possibly archived, but haven't been able to. I did find offline clippings on the subject's website. Is there a way to factor those stories into the discussion? Those stories are the exact types of references we strive for on Wiki, but unsure how to handle the offline nature of them. Co44ee (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Co44ee: Hello, Co44ee. Thanks for following up on this. Before responding to your question, I'll note that I've moved your posting from the top of this Talk page to the bottom (which is where it should have been posted). This is done automatically when you click the "New section" tab that appears at the top of every person's Talk page.

Sources do not have to be online. In the article itself, they do need to be specified in enough detail to permit another person to locate the source and verify that the information in the article has been faithfully related. But for an AfD discussion, all you really need to do is demonstrate that those sources exist and say what you say they say. A link to that page on Ashman's site is probably going to be sufficient for discussion purposes.

The tougher problem, I think, is going to be showing that all those clippings on the website really do contribute to Ashman's encyclopedic notability. I took a quick look at the page and saw that most of them are New York publications covering New York entertainment topics. And even the ones that aren't from New York didn't seem to be providing the significant coverage that we look for when considering notability. As one extreme example, a picture of an actress blowing out some birthday candles does nothing whatsoever to bolster Ashman's status as an encyclopedically notable person, even if Ashman's name or the name of his club gets mentioned in the caption of the photo.

I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Brave New World lede[edit]

I won't re-revert. But I think the opening sentence of the lede should not feature words that have to be linked in order to mean anything. Valetude (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Valetude: Hello, Valetude. Thanks for engaging in discussion. Wikipedia is aimed at general readers who have some degree of proficiency in English. I suppose that there can be reasonable debate as to whether "dystopian" is in the vocabulary of most proficient speakers of English, but it can't reasonably be considered a specialist term understood by only a few. However, my primary reason for reverting was simply that the word had been appearing in the lede since 2001, and the precise phrase "dystopian novel" has been there since 2003. To change phrasing that has such long tenure in an article, it'll be better to start a conversation on the article's Talk page.

Thanks again for discussing. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


I did not mention Afrikaans is an official language of Zambia, but rather a minority language and ethnic group. This is a problem because Zambian government does not recognise the existence of Afrikaner in the country, despite they've controlled vast amount of agricultural land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP address. Thank you for engaging in discussion. Although it's true that you did not explicitly say that Afrikaans was an official language, you implied it when you restated the name of the republic in the title of the infobox. As for the rest of your edits, the 2010 census doesn't mention anything about Afikaans or Afrikaaners. If you feel that their presence in Zambia is significant enough to warrant a mention, that would probably best be done in the text of the article. And it will certainly need reliable authoritative sourcing. You might want to open up a discussion with article's regular editors on the article's Talk page.

Thanks again for discussing. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


Would it have killed you to take 2 seconds to look at the talk page? Or even ask? You undid all that for nothing and I had to move it back to the archive page I created, while I was in the middle of cleaning it up, as I clearly stated on the talk page. Please check before being so quick with the revert button. Thank you. - theWOLFchild 04:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for following up on this. And to answer your question -- no, it wouldn't have killed me to wait two seconds. Which is why I waited for more than half an hour before restoring the material. And as the time stamp shows, you didn't create the archive until after I did that restoration. As for the archive link on Talk:Paramilitary, that didn't appear until even later. So, exactly what would I have seen on the Talk page that would have let me know that you were in the process of archiving? I look forward to your response. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
It was right there on the talk page; ("I'm in the middle of a archive page clean up right now"). Since I'd removed all but 2 sections, one that I was actively commenting in, I don't see how you could miss it, (especially since you had an entire half-hour!). Or you could've just posted a comment there and asked me; "Hey Wolf, what'cha doin' with all that content you said you were gonna archive? Is everything ok? You need any help?" Like I said... check. Please consider that for next time. Thank you - theWOLFchild 06:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
If I wanted to know what was going on with the deletion of many Talk page postings, I should have read through a lengthy thread titled "Image issue"? That's ... bizarre. But I'm glad it all worked out in the end. Thanks again for discussing. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Original Research[edit]

Dear NewYorkActuary, You have removed a part of my addition to the page Time loop with a remark that it is "original research". Can you please explain why it is original research and a simple plot summary is not? I am not making an analysis, but only reiterate what is evident from watching the film. Anyways, I can make a reference to a book discussing the same topic. Would it help? Regards, --David162se (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@David162se: Hello, David. Thank you for discussing this. When done correctly, a plot summary is composed solely of things that can observed by a person unfamiliar with anything other than what appears in the book or film. Indeed, the Plot sections of many articles on books/films generate debate precisely because some editors seek to incorporate elements that seem obvious to them, but not to others. Had your material appeared in the Plot section of the article on Groundhog Day, I have little doubt that the editors there would have rejected it for exactly that reason.

Without sourcing, your interpretation of the film's events, and your analysis of their effects on the main character, can only be considered original research on your part. But if you can cite all of that to an authoritative source, then you will have proven that it is not "original research" and my immediate objection would cease. But I would still have another -- sourced analysis of the film is better placed in the Analysis section of the article on the film. The objection to placing it in the Time Loop article is that the elements of your discussion ("curse", "blessing", etc.) are not universal to all fictional works involving time loops. The fact that they appear in one fictional work, but not in most others, makes me wonder why it should appear at all in the time loop article. But in the linked section of the article on the film? That's exactly where that material belongs.

I hope this response has been helpful. I'll be happy to engage in further discussion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I guess you have a point. It wasn't pure reiteration of the plot. There was some interpretation too (even if very obvious). So I definitely should have sourced it.

Regarding the question of whether this discussion (curse or blessing) even belongs in the Time loop article because it is not universal to all fictional works involving time loops... Well, which themes do then? Even a theme like learning from each successive loop and building on that knowledge is far from universal. How many novels/films would it take to make it relevant?

Besides, Groundhog day is not just some random work within this genre. It is arguably the one which is best known to the general public. It has to count for something, don't you think? That's why I thought that the theme of curse or blessing which is quite prominent in this film, deserves attention.

You have certainly noticed that the article is still very much a stub and would benefit from expansion. I thought it would be a good idea to describe additional noteworthy themes within the genre and also to mention a few more significant works (be it films or novels). What do you think?

Regards, --David162se (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@David162se: You raise some good counterarguments. And I very much agree that the article should be expanded to include a discussion of themes that are present in that particular sub-genre of fiction. But a friendly word of caution -- even if you succeed in finding authoritative commentary on the themes in Groundhog Day, your addition of that commentary might still be reverted. I won't be the one to do it, but others might feel that a discussion of that one film, unaccompanied by sourced discussion of any other work of fiction, places undue weight on the film. And so, in answer to your final question -- yes, discussion of additional significant works is not only a good idea, but probably an essential element of expanding the article.

My personal rule of thumb tells me that if a source discusses only a single book or film, then it belongs in the article on that book or film. You'll avoid the problem of "undue weight" if you can find authoritative sources that analyse the entire sub-genre. Perhaps you are already familiar with such sources. If not, you might want to start at the topic's entry in the Science Fiction Encyclopedia. It's largely a chronology of works, with little critical commentary, but at least it might serve as a starting point for further searches. Another possibility is the archive of Depauw University's Science Fiction Studies (though I find it a tad too "academic" for my tastes). And of course, you never know what might pop up at Google Books.

If I can be of any assistance with this, please let me know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and constructive advice.

As you have suggested, I will try to research the issue some more. Hopefully, I can find a more generalized analysis and/or analyses of additional noteworthy single works. Maybe then I can make a useful contribution.

I appreciate your offer of assistance. You probably have a lot on your plate already. But if you happen to come across some useful authoritative sources specifically discussing time loop fiction (and accessible online), please let me know.

Regards, --David162se (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Christopher Nolan filmography[edit]

Hello and thank you for reviewing (or holding I should say) the filmography article a bit. I've written most of the biography and brought it to GA a few years ago. I don't see any reasonable arguments for it to not pass, but feel free to disagree.

Best regards,

Sammyjankis88 (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sammyjankis88: Hello, Sammy. It looks to me that there has been an issue as to whether Christopher Nolan's filmography really merits a stand-alone article. But that issue has never been the subject of a discussion. Instead, the history of the article shows that you created the filmography article back in 2012 and, since then, have twice seen it converted into a redirect to the director's article. What is needed here is a resolution of that question -- but the Articles for Creation project is not intended to serve as the arbiter of such matters. I see that, six days ago, an IP address raised the question of a stand-alone filmography at the Talk page of the director's article. There have not yet been any responses and, if there continues to be no response after seven days, I suggest you go ahead and restore the Filmography article. You don't need the Articles for Creation process to perform that restoration and, after you've done it, you can augment the filmography in whatever fashion you feel is appropriate. And if your restoration gets reverted yet again, you'll need to start a Request for Comments on the question. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Sammyjankis88 (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: Bless Its Pointed Little Head[edit]

@NewYorkActuary (talk) While I'd concede the original title as corrected from Surrealistic Pillow, I can only say my impulse to apply this particular modification just derived directly from "3/5's" actually appearing on this album's back cover that I happened to notice in passing:

Though, of course, this album's LP label actually does include the otherwise universal "3/5":

RRawpower (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@RRawpower: Thanks for discussing this. I didn't realize that the album cover gave a (slightly) different title than did the label. And so, I won't re-revert if you change it back.

Before posting here, I took a look at BMI's website to see if there was an "official" version of the title and found, to my surprise, that it isn't listed on that site (even though other of the band's songs from the '60s are listed there). And the ASCAP site is down for maintenance. I assume the site will be operational by next week, at which point we can see what they say about the title. In the meantime, why not adopt the approach that works well in other situations where reliable sources offer conflicting information -- put one or the other title in the track listing, but add a footnote telling the reader that there is another version of the title.

I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@NewYorkActuary: I actually did not revert it myself simply because I realized the original title from Surrealistic Pillow remains standard in the first place regardless, but especially once I took the extra (10 seconds ;- ) time to take a look at this album's actual LP label as also noted with a photo URL. And, in fact, only because of that did I decide not to make anything more of the apparent back cover discrepancy by going so far as to even state something like "3/5's" [as listed on cover] to avoid unnecessary confusion for such a detail that ultimately has no significant bearing whatsoever.

RRawpower (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Barkeep49 -- Barkeep49 (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Request to revoke deletion request[edit]

Hello NewYorkActuary.

My contributed article on have recently been flagged for deletion by you.

I understand there have been some recent additions which does not follow the guidelines which has been done by a party I know. Can you kindly help us with what has to be done to get it reinstated?

Many thanks for your support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinaki1001 (talkcontribs) 10:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pinaki1001: Thanks for following up on this. The article has not yet been deleted. That action is still being discussed and I encourage you to join that discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Ananth Narayanan. The discussion will remain open for at least another four days. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi NewYorkActuary. Thank you for the update. What I am saying is this article should be present in its entirety and not perform any redirection to the brand article "Myntra". If you could help me with the things that needs to rectified/done, I would really appreciate this :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinaki1001 (talkcontribs) 06:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pinaki1001: I don't think the article can be saved, because I don't think the subject has received in-depth coverage from multiple reliable and independent sources. But if you have evidence otherwise, feel free to present that evidence in the deletion discussion. It will remain open for another three days, but I suggest you not put this off until the last minute. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
@NewYorkActuary: Quite unfortunate that the article got deleted. He is a notable and a credible business man with many external legit references. I wanted to build this genuinely on my own :( . Is there any other way I can do that? Kindly help!
@Pinaki1001: Two quick points before I address your main question. First, there is no need to use the {{replyto}} template to notify me of postings to my own Talk page, because I am automatically notified of those postings anyway. And second, Pinaki, you really do need to start signing your posts. You can do this by placing four tildes (i.e., ~~~~ ) at the end of your post. There is a clickable button at the bottom of the edit window that will do this automatically.

As for your main question, if you had "many external legit references", you should have placed them in the article or, at least, revealed them during the deletion discussion. At this point, your best option will be to start a draft on the subject and, when you feel it is ready, submit it for review by the Articles for Creation project. If you attempt to re-create the article without getting their acceptance, you run the risk of having the article quickly deleted. You can learn about starting a draft at Help:Userspace drafts. I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey thanks a lot for clarifying this. I would certainly do the things mentioned above. In case I get to any hurdles I would reach out to you for any help whatsoever :)

And yes I have signed below :) Pinaki1001 (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Why'd you undo my edit to History of Samoa?[edit]

There were two citation needed tags, when only one was necessary. (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

You're quite right. I missed the existing tag and should not have restored the redundant one. I've reverted my action. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


Just like I told Spshu, I'm telling this to you too. David and his admin staff of that site wanted us users to use that format by not linking the whole entire PDF documents from their site as references. Therefore Wikipedia doesn't get into trouble. King Shadeed March 26, 2018 12:04 EDT

@King Shadeed: Thank you for engaging in discussion. I think that a large part of the confusion here is the unclear motivations that you given for your reverts. I agree that the site does caution against using the search links, because they are not static. But the original poster was not using the search links -- they were linking to the static address of the underlying document. And after I restored the original link, you reverted again, but this time with an edit summary that suggested we should be using the static link for the particular page being cited. Okay, but then why revert? Why not simply modify the existing link to point to the particular page? And now you are here at this Talk page, suggesting that there is some legal liability involved in linking to the entire document. And that raises two questions for me. First, where on the site does it say that? I didn't find any such warning, nor did I expect to find one, given that the site's FAQs suggest that the site has permission to host the documents. And second, if the concern is really with the target of the link (i.e., full document vs. the individual page), I can only repeat my earlier question -- why not simply modify the existing link?

I look forward to your response. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Because that's the proper format they want us to use. It's just like sourcing books. King Shadeed March 26, 2018 12:44 EDT
Thank you for the prompt response. But it leaves my basic question unanswered -- if you knew the proper format all along, why didn't you just fix it, instead of repeatedly reverting with varying reasons? NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Because I've been using that format for a few years. King Shadeed March 26, 2018 12:52 EDT
On top of that, I've been using that same format on other articles such as Columbia Pictures Television and TriStar Television. King Shadeed March 26, 2018 12:53 EDT
I even used that same format earlier this month on that page while doing my research on the foundation of MGM Television. Any other questions you ask, I'll answer them later because I have to go to work. King Shadeed March 26, 2018 13:04 EDT
Thanks again for the prompt response. Do I understand your answer correctly? You seem to be saying "I reverted instead of fixing the link because I've been using that format for a few years on this and other articles." Frankly, that response doesn't make much sense to me but, then again, little about this episode has made sense. By the way, how about an answer to my other question -- where on the site does it say that there is some legal liability involved in linking to the entire document?

I look forward to your next response. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind the legal stuff right now. I'll get back to that later. As of right now, you're missing my point. What I've shown you was the proper format. When I first added what I've first shown you was proper on the MGM Television article. Spshu changed it for no reason. Obviously he doesn't seem to follow simple instructions on what Broadcasting told us to use. THAT'S the proper modification. What's the point on adding the whole entire PDF document as a reference and search for the entire news source? That's just a waste of time! Do you understand where I'm coming from on that? King Shadeed March 26, 2018 21:34 EDT

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────No, I don't understand where you're coming from, largely because your version of events bears little resemblance to reality. When you first added the cite here, you didn't add a link. Another editor added it the next day and, six weeks later, you revert that (here), with an edit summary telling that editor that they shouldn't use PDFs as sources because "they change". And you revert a second time (here), telling that editor that they shouldn't link to search pages because they "change often". That's true, but the editor wasn't linking to a search page. And the rest of your edit summary was incomprehensible. Finally, after a few more reverts, you leave an edit summary (here) that finally makes clear you want a link to an individual page. But your edit summary shows no awareness of the fact that the URL for accessing the single pages follows a different path than does the one used for accessing the entire document. And so, I find it amusing that you think that you had shown us the "proper format" for linking to either the document or the individual page. But I expect you'll disagree and that's fine. I have no intention of discussing this further.

The only reason I've engaged in this pointless discussion was because of your allegation that my edits might "get Wikipedia into trouble". You evaded my first question about this and answered my second request with "Nevermind the legal stuff ... I'll get back to that later." No, Shadeed, you'll get back to it now. Either produce evidence that I've placed Wikipedia in legal jeopardy or withdraw the allegation.

I look forward to your response. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay so basically, you've wasted my time with your responses regarding about references, right or wrong?? Not ALL references will have links. And HOW LONG have you've been editing here at this site and YOU haven't noticed THAT?? King Shadeed March 28, 2018 23:38 EDT
And still no evidence that there were any valid copyright concerns. This discussion is over. Thank you for your time. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
It's not over yet. So I don't know who do you think you are. And you've already had gotten on my last nerves. King Shadeed April 2, 2018 23:03 EDT

King Shadeed asked me about this at User talk:EdJohnston#Problems with Spshu at MGM Television and I replied there. I have some trouble understanding King Shadeed's views. He reverted more than once at MGM Television but one of his changes removed the URL from reference 7. Presumably this was not his intention. This is possibly a debate on whether you should link to PDFs? If this is something people are going to revert about, consensus ought to be found, for example at WT:TV. EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Thanks for looking into this. As best I can tell, this is really a question over whether there should be any link at all. This has been the one common element of Shadeed's actions -- there was no link when they added the reference here and, since then, Shadeed's actions have all been to remove a link added by another editor. But Shadeed gives differing reasons for doing this, and sometimes those reasons address the "formatting" of the link. None of this makes much sense to me and, as you can see from the above, I have no intention of continuing this discussion with Shadeed. I will, of course, participate at WP:DRN if Shadeed wishes to start an action there. Thanks again for looking into this. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark[edit]

The article Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Barkeep49 -- Barkeep49 (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Dorothy Kilgallen[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! deisenbe (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Murder ballad category removals[edit]

Thanks for removing the Murder Ballad category from Dylan's Hurricane and Who Killed Davey Moore. Both were cited as murder ballads on NSF Music Station, and while I know both songs well and had some doubts, I added the category anyway to see what other editors might think. Your removing the category clarified the issue for me. Allreet (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Allreet: Thanks for engaging in discussion. I intended to push back on most of your category additions, but decided that edit summaries were not going to be sufficient to explain my reasoning. Instead, I was going to open a discussion on your Talk page, but this Talk page will serve just as well.

I object to these categorizations because they don't take into account the fact that murder ballad is a particular genre of song, developed in the British Isles and also in those portions of the American South that continued to use the British tradition. I suppose one could claim that your categorizations represent "modern day" examples of murder ballads, but this is not the kind of judgments that should be made by Wikipedians. Without reliable sourcing, these kinds of judgments inevitably lead to "genre wars".

I presume that the source you mention is . This source reflects a poll of listeners and there is no reason to believe that the listeners were aware of the technical meaning of "murder ballad" (and the website itself never uses the phrase outside the title of the piece). I don't see that as a reliable source for placing those songs in the category.

Perhaps things would be better if the songs were placed in a new category, Category:Songs about murders, of which Category:Murder ballads would be a sub-category. If this approach is acceptable to you, I'll be happy to start making that change.

Thanks again for discussing. I look forward to your response. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your courteous reply. Based on numerous sources, I disagree with the view that murder ballads are limited to any time period or locality. In researching the subject, I found various online sources applying the term to more recently recorded works, including Rolling Stone, Paste, No Depression, and AllMusic. I realize these publications may tend toward a "pop culture" view of things and with that lack "scholarly weight", but I've also found references in books and academic papers, as well as in a lecture Greil Marcus gave at Harvard on Dylan's "Hollis Brown".
Admittedly, I'm new to the subject of murder ballads but not to music history or research. My most recent project was to complete the List of the Child Ballads by writing synopses of 230 or so songs, an effort that took me cover to cover in Child's five-volume work. My sense is that Child would not have argued the ballad or its subgenre had run its course after a millenium or so of existence. In any case, his successors Roud and Laws recognized the ongoing development of these forms in cataloguing works stretching well into the 20th century. Granted, more recent songs may seem out of place, "Hey Joe" or "Down by the River", but it's likely scholars experienced a similar discomfort nearly a century ago about blues songs that we now readily accept as carrying on the tradition. As it turns out, even "Hurricane" solidly belongs in the genre based on its subject matter and form, an assertion supported by other sources I've found, including SingOut! and BBC.
I fully respect the idea of preserving traditions, protecting them from corruption, but believe no form of music exists as an artifact. Dylan himself was attacked by those who felt he was betraying folk music by changing the nature of his song writing (in one very prominent instance, at the hands of SingOut!) and then his instrumentation, yet his efforts to introduce old forms into popular music did more to keep traditions alive than anything his critics could have dreamed possible.
I wouldn't worry about edit wars either. They're inevitable no matter what and can also be settled by sticking by our standards, for example, by requiring multiple reliable sources from anyone who insists a song belongs in a category, as we do in other cases where notability and verifiability are at issue. Allreet (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Allreet: Perhaps we'll need to have a formal Request for Comments to resolve our differing points of view. But before we do that, it might be helpful to note that we do have substantial agreement on at least one point. We both agree that there should be a category that collects songs about murders. Our disagreement seems to be only about the name of the category. Calling it "Songs about murders" strikes me as the better approach, because it can be populated on a self-evident basis (i.e., if the song is about a murder, then it belongs in "Category:Songs about murders"). But collecting them all under "Category:Murder ballads" is problematic, because it will either be done on the basis of unsourced assertions, or on the notion (as you outlined above) that Wikipedia should expand the commonly-accepted definition of murder ballad to include modern-day material that no reliable source has ever linked to the older genre. And these two problems can easily be avoided, simply by a more judicious approach to naming the category.

I look forward to your response and I hope that we can resolve this without a formal Request for Comments. But if we do need a formal Request, I propose that it take place on the Talk page of WikiProject Songs. If you believe a different venue would be better, please let me know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

We may need to seek a formal Request, and I agree on the venue you proposed as appropriate. I'm not wild about that approach either, but given the numerous sources that apply the term to modern songs, I think that creating a new category just to settle a difference between two editors or to avoid future hassles runs contrary to what we normally do here. By the way, I'm not close to proposing that every song that mentions murder qualifies as a ballad and also realize that adjudicating such issues can sometimes be difficult if not maddening. I just don't see how we can ignore the body of authoritative opinion that holds there is such as thing as a modern murder ballad. In the meantime, I may add some additional songs to the category, but I'll stick with purely traditional ballads until we can work this out. Best wishes... Allreet (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@Allreet: Sorry for the delay in taking action. Rather than jump straight into a formal Request, I started by asking for opinions on the Talk page of the Songs WikiProject. The posting is here. Your comments there will be welcome. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
That's a very good approach. I will offer comment and respond to others as needed. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Miss Universe 2018[edit]

Your Bullshit Miss Universe Croatia is Done Aizasalaum (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. When re-adding the material, please be sure to add a reliable source for it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Importance of Mastic (plant resin)[edit]

You have reverted my Importance rate of Mastic (plant resin) to low. Can you explain me why this is low? Maybe it is not TOP, but I would rate it at least at high as it is part of UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists. And I expect if Greece put it to the World Heritage of UNESCO the Government and the people rate it as very high --GodeNehler (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@GodeNehler: Hello, GodeNehler. Thank you for engaging in discussion. I see that you've upgraded the "importance" ratings of something on the order of 200 articles, leaving edit summaries stating that you did this because the topics appear on a list drawn up by the United Nations. But that isn't how the "importance" classifications are done here on Wikipedia. They are not intended to be an expression of the intrinsic importance of the topic. Instead, they are intended to be used by the individual WikiProjects as a means of prioritizing the work done by the Project's members. Rather than reflecting any intrinsic notion of "importance", they are supposed to reflect the relative level of "importance" given the topic by that Project (as compared to the other articles within the scope of that Project).

For example, the WikiProject for Greece states that the only articles that are given "Top" importance are articles about the country itself, as well as a few very major historical figures. Your decision to include mastic (plant resin) in that same category simply runs counter to the wishes of that Project's members. And given that you've been making these re-assessments at a very quick pace (sometimes doing two or three re-assessments in the space of a minute) suggests that you haven't given much thought as to how your re-assessments will impact the work being done by each Project.

The better approach would be to open up a discussion at the Talk page of each relevant WikiProject to ask how the members of that Project feel about using the UNESCO list as a basis for upgrading the assessments. Some might agree with you, some might not, and others might agree to increase the "importance" but not to the very high levels that you have been using. But whatever the outcome. you'll know how the individual Projects feel about your proposed changes.

In the meantime, you probably should self-revert your re-assessments. If you'd like, I'll be happy to discuss this further, NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@NewYorkActuary: Hello NewYorkActuary, thank you for your feedback. With awareness of your feedback I finished the check the article of UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists of its importance. I have recognized that lot of Project have no rating / examples for the importance. Is there somewhere an overview page of the of the Projects: how to rate importance and quality in general? --GodeNehler (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@GodeNehler: I see that you've made multiple re-ratings for dozens of additional articles, even though you now know that your actions are being contested. And you continue to do them at a very fast pace. You really need to stop doing this and begin the process of reverting your hundreds of re-assessments until you've gotten some consensus from each of the very many WikiProjects whose work you are affecting.

As for an "overview" page for rating the importance of an article, there is no such page. Because these ratings are set separately by each individual WikiProject, you should consult each relevant Project page to see what they say about it. Some offer specific guidance; others are less specific. But in every case, you should be talking with the Project members on the Talk page of each WikiProject. At each Talk page, you can let them know what you intend to do and ask for their comments.

Again, I encourage you to begin self-reverting the many changes that you have made over the past 24 hours or so. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Even if I think I am in line with the WikiProjects (I have check them now), I will stop changing the importance. --GodeNehler (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
@GodeNehler: Thanks for agreeing to look into the procedures that each WikiProject uses to set its own priorities. This is the essential element of selecting an Importance rating and I continue to think it was wrong for you to unilaterally re-order the priorities of hundred of articles affecting hundreds of separate WikiProjects. I also continue to encourage you to engage in discussions with each of those WikiProjects.

After taking a closer look at the UNESCO list, I've come to believe that you do have a reasonably good case for re-rating "Low" importance articles to "Mid" importance, but no higher than that. For example, I've just reverted your re-assessment of Turkish coffee for the Turkey WikiProject (meaning that I've reset it to "Mid"). By rating it as "Top" importance, you were telling the Turkey WikiProject that they should devote as much time and effort to an article on a type of coffee as they would to the articles on Turkey and Istanbul. And that's not something that make much sense to me. Nor do I think it would make much sense to the folks at that WikiProject, either.

Thanks again for the discussion. And please take the time to re-consider your very many changes in assessments and to discuss them with the various WikiProjects. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@NewYorkActuary: I could agree, not to rate it as TOP, but, I personally think it should be high, as it says somewhere, high = should be part of an printed encyclopedia. And I would rate it from German point of view that important. Anyhow, I leave it now like it is. :-) --GodeNehler (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


Thanks - I was trying to figure out how to keep it but couldn't figure out neutral wording. Clearly my brain has deserted me today! ... Thanks,   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  06:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@CJinoz: Perhaps it's just the perils of late-night editing. By the way, I didn't realise who you were until I checked your user page. It's good to hear from you again. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, not hiding the previous u-name but I felt it was time for a change to something broader. I'm keen to get more involved in editing articles on other subjects but I honestly don't really know where to start, so for now i'm just floating & keeping an eye on my watchlist. ... Thanks,   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  07:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

11:03:05, 10 May 2018 review of submission by TheseGlyphs[edit]

Hi there

Have edited this article significantly to bring it more into line with your suggestions, and found significantly new sources and references. Have submitted for re-review a couple of months ago but not heard anything back yet - do let me know if there's anything else I could be doing to speed the process along / improve the article.

Thanks! TheseGlyphs (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@TheseGlyphs: Hello, TheseGlyphs. Right now, the backlog at Articles for Creation is more than two months, so there's little that can be done right now except wait for someone to get around to looking at your draft. But I took a look at it myself, with the aim of seeing whether I could accept it immediately on the basis of the changes you've made. I find that I can't do that because, despite the changes, I still see a failure to demonstrate that this organisation is "notable" (in the sense that Wikipedia uses the word). The new draft has 16 references, no less than 12 of which are the websites of either the Coalition itself or one of its members. And another one (the Scotland accountants) merely republishes an article that originally appeared on the web site of a Coalition member. As for the few others, all that I saw was articles by people who attended a Coalition-sponsored event, and then reported on what they learned about green economies. This, of course, is not at all the same as a report on the organisation itself.

Perhaps the next person who reviews your submission will feel differently and will accept it for publication. But I won't be the one to do it. If wish to discuss this further, I'll be happy to respond to questions or comments. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Miss Earth 2018 ..I..[edit]

I think I had wasted enough my time editing my self-created article Miss Earth 2018. AND, I think I have to submit the article for Proposed Deletion process😛 my bad😂😂 GeekMoody19 (talk) 05:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@GeekMoody19: Hello, GeekMoody. Thank you for engaging in discussion outside of edit summaries. I thought you had the right idea when you boldly removed the columns for age and hometown, because I think that neither of these bits of data is relevant for the international event. But I saw that you soon reverted yourself. If you reconsider your position on this, you might want to open a discussion on the Talk page of the Beauty Pageants project. Thanks again for engaging in discussion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Miss Americas from 2001 to present[edit]

You should extend the winners from 5 to 18!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:9307:E900:29BC:2235:D16B:D6D (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, IP address. Why not start a discussion on this at the Talk page of the Beauty Pageants project? If you do, we'll see how the rest of the Project's members feel about your proposal. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Request Moves[edit]

Why do you oppose for Chandrakanta, Brahmarakshas and VJ Andy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunKhurana326 (talkcontribs) 17:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi New York I had an discussion with a user and he said do it your self so I moved the articles for Chandrakanta and Brahamarkshas. Thanks for the advice

Oh and on a serious note I was recently admitted to hospital as the doctors told me I got type 1 diabetes — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunKhurana326 (talkcontribs) 18:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for your help with the Request for Comments forms. Still have a lot to learn. VeritasVox (talk) 04:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice of administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

DYK nomination of Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 24 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a theory that English nursery rhymes such as "Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark" could be understood by translating sound-alike Dutch words back into English was called "ingenious if somewhat addlepated"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hark, Hark! The Dogs Do Bark), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lucibufagin[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lucibufagin. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox criminal[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox criminal. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Memon page edit recent updates and prior edit[edit]

You edited my addition on the "Memon"page and labelled them as (un-constructive) which is quite ok although I can insert sources and video interviews to support the edit. Although I thank you for taking out the time and editing my lineage. There have been further edits on the page involve "caste" discussions, most of them without sources and in a derogatory manner. Since you do have quite some experience in editing I would appreciate it if you could watch the page or revert it back to it's original firm" Kind Regards, Muhammad Mustafa Rashid 05:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Mmarashid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmarashid (talkcontribs)

Please comment on Talk:Adolf Hitler[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Adolf Hitler. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)