User talk:NewYorkActuary/2017

DYK for Nehemiah Corporation of America
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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)
 * 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 .  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)

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 Sockpuppet investigations/Chris M Pattinson interesting. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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)

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)
 * 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)

adding more sourced material on my article
Can you help me add more sourced stuff on my 1st article Ney ney changa (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Do images also work when it comes to proving the article is legit ? Ney ney changa (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, adding images won't make any difference. And no, I won't be looking for any more sources for your article.  I already saved your article from the Proposed Deletion tag and another editor already saved your article from the Speedy Deletion tag.  It's now up to you to save your article from the Articles for Deletion nomination.  As I pointed out in my comment at Talk:Neville Sigauke, you need to start searching the web sites of the major Zibabwean news outlets for evidence of substantial coverage.  It will also help if you can prove that the song was on the charts for the length of time that you say it was on the charts.  The deletion discussion will run for another six days, so that's how much time you have to save your article.  I wish you the best of luck with it.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

found some needed links
Thank you for your help 😊 Ney ney changa (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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)
 * Hello, . 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)

Non-diffusing categories
Hi. Please don't remove. It's non-diffusing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

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
 * 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)

June 2017
Your recent editing history at United States Virgin Islands shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ibadibam (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Follow-up conversation took place at User talk:Ibadibam

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)

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)

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)
 * 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)

Why did you remove my edits including a link to a related tool?
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)
 * 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)

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.


 * 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)

NewYorkActuary; I thought you should know that Knowledgeorg created Treemerge.io, but I have tagged it under WP:CSD. Further discussion is at User talk:Knowledgeorg. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Restoring unsourced content
Hey, could you explain why you rolled back to this (where they also removed the AfD notice) and removed sourced content? Also, it's been rather well established that Miss Grand International is not notable. Thanks! CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  19:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Chrissy. Thanks for following up on this.  The page's primary author was wrong to remove the AfD notice and, in my very next edit after restoring the original content, I re-added that notice (I also added a citation-needed tag for the date and venue of the international pageant).  As for the more basic question, there simply is no prohibition against mentioning non-notable topics in an article.  Biographies of actors are permitted to mention non-notable films, biographies of authors are permitted to mention non-notable books, biographies of athletes are permitted to mention non-notable teams on which they played early (or late) in their careers.  These non-notable topics might not contribute to the overall assessment of the subject's notability, but they do contribute to painting a more-complete picture of the subject.  As for removing sourced content, I wasn't aware that I did that (I thought I was restoring sourced content when I restored the primary author's version of the page).  If I'm mistaken about that, please let me know.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand about notability in notable subjects however the bigger issue here is that the claims replaced sourced content with unsourced content that was also non-notable. In this case, yes, your revision not only removed the AfD (which you did remedy) but restored both content that was irrelevant from an encyclopedic standpoint and unsourced on a BLP. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  23:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Chrissy. Thanks for getting back to me.  Looking through the article history, I see that the references were removed by the other editor here.  When I restored the AfD banner, I should have restored those references, as well.  And, indeed, I would have if I had realized that they were removed.  I've gone back and restored the one that appeared in the body of the article, but not the one that appeared in the lead.  That latter reference was being used to source a statement that was already being sourced in the body of the article, so I saw no point in restoring it.  But if you feel strongly about it, feel free to add it back in.  Thanks again for getting back to me.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Huggle
Hi there, there are a number of edits that you have reverted using huggle and have reported a user to the Admins however you have not warned this user enough times. Corruptcopper (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Corruptcopper. Thank you for the message.  But was it really intended for me?  I don't use Huggle, so I'm unsure what reversions and reports you are concerned with.  If I really am the person you wanted to contact, it would be helpful if you supplied some diffs for the reversions/reports.  I look forward to hearing from you.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Unsigned posting
Wow, I thought I knew something about computers, but I've never encountered anything as non-user friendly as trying to get an article on Wikipedia and trying to navigate around the draft section.. Holy mackerel, Wikipedia is so handy and easy to use to read article, but really tough to put up an article!! just venting here....!!!! guess I'm giving up.... sigh! Unsigned, left by User:Moleknoll 15:40 2 September 2017
 * I've moved your posting from the top of this Talk page to the bottom (which is where it should have been posted). I also added a descriptive heading for it (a standard practice when starting a new conversation on a Talk page).  These two things are done automatically when you click the "New section" tab that appears at the top of every person's Talk page. Regarding the substance of your posting, I'm unsure how to respond.  I hope you'll stick around to help improve Wikipedia.  But if your interests truly lie only in getting that one draft published, I'll understand why you might not want to stick around.  Either way, if I can be of any assistance, please let me know.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

Reversal of List_of_films_featuring_time_loops
I'm surprised by this revert. If someone becomes his/her own ancestor, that would definitely qualify as a time loop, I would have thought. Can you explain how a "causal loop" is different from a "time loop"? Also, how does this particular movie not fit into the list, given that some of the other entries deal with quite similar loops? MichiHenning (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, Michi. Thanks for following up on this.  A discussion of this issue took place last year on the Talk page of the article.  I'm not sure that the discussion reached any definitive conclusion, but reading it might give some insight into the differences that are sometimes drawn between "causal loops" and "time loops".  A more direct answer to your question can be gotten from the sentence that appears at the very top of the article -- where it calls for plots that show people experiencing the "same period of time repeatedly".  From the description that you gave in your edit, I didn't see how this condition had been met.  But given the wide range of opinion on this topic, I'll not object to you adding the material back into the table.  However, others at that article might object, and they almost certainly will object to having an unsourced entry.  To avoid that problem, you'll need to find a reliable source that describes the film as a "time loop film".  If you can do that, your addition will probably pass muster with the folks at that page.  I hope this response has been helpful.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


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