User talk:NewYorkActuary/AfC 2016
Thanks for your recent input. I have re-written the history section to avoid any possibility of 'taint' as per your suggestion. Another reviewer Ntb613 has stated that they are ready to accept and publish the entry following a serious of amendments that I have made as long as you are now content with the changes I have made to this section to address the issue you raised. If you are, and have a spare moment, it would be really helpful if you could indicate accordingly on their or my talk page. My talk or Ntb613 talk Many thanks. CPBearfoot (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- @CPBearfoot: I'll be happy to take a look at the revised version. However, it's unlikely I can get to it today. I'll commit to getting comments back to you and Ntb613 either tomorrow or the day after. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:Perennial Math[edit]
Thanks for your quick help in making me understand this platform. It will really great, if you can suggest what more should I do to make this article live.
Thanks Aankitmishra (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Aankitmishra: Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. As for improving the draft, I have only the same suggestion made by others -- you need to find reliable third-party sources that discuss the organization and that do so in depth. Without that, there is little chance of the draft ever becoming a Wikipedia article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey there, any idea what's going on with Draft:Blank Banshee ? As far as references go his (unpublished) article is now more comprehensive than several of his contemporaries' published articles ( see Vektroid see Saint Pepsi ) which is bizarre. I feel I have submitted my draft an excessive amount of times yet also strongly feel that it satisfies the notability guidelines for musicians (I have made myself familiar with WP:MUS, WP:BIO ). I do not anticipate any admins or editors would take issue with Draft:Blank Banshee being moved to the article space at this point. Michael lone2004 (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, Michael. I see your point about the comparison with the other two articles, but it seems to me that those other two articles shouldn't exist, either. I doubt that either one would survive a deletion nomination. As to your own draft, you'll need to demonstrate which of the criteria under WP:MUS is being met. If you feel that the draft does meet one or more of those criteria, your best option will be to start a discussion on the Talk page of the draft, where interested reviewers will be able to provide commentary. If you do so, be sure to specify which criteria is being addressed and also point out which material in the article supports your claim. I hope this was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
There's been a lot of discussion about it, as far as I can see this article was first proposed in 2014 at which time conditions surrounding the subject's notability would not have been sufficient for inclusion on wikipedia. But at this point, citing the section referencing composers and performers outside mass media traditions, it states they may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria: Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture. Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching for a particular music genre. Is cited by reliable sources as having established a tradition or school in a particular music genre. Has been listed as a significant musical influence on musicians or composers who meet the above criteria. The subject of my article certainly meets all those criteria. This can be verified by checking the references on Draft:Blank Banshee. So I guess my question is what else needs to be done at this point? Do you have the power to publish this article or is there a protocol i'm overlooking. I am somewhat new to wikipedia so forgive me if I come across ignorant, I'm just trying to understand what stands in the way of this article's publication. Michael lone2004 (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Michael lone2004: My apologies for the delay in response. I remain unconvinced that the subject has satisfied the notability requirements and so, at this point, your better option is to convince some other reviewer. To this end, I'll open up a discussion on the Draft's Talk page and leave a note on the draft itself directing other reviewers to it. I'll ping you when this has been done (it'll take just a few minutes). By way of friendly advice, I suggest that your argument at that discussion be something more than a mere declaration that the notability guidelines have been met. Most reviewers will want to know which particular sources are being used to satisfy which particular criterion under the guidelines. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Biancaharms (talk · contribs)
Thank you for reviewing the draft the emma page. This was declined since the page already exists under the old name of the association. How can I change the name of the existing page? Thank you in advance! Biancaharms (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Biancaharms: I just left a message for you at the AfC Help Desk. If you still have any questions, let me know. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help :NewYorkActuary: !
Hi, My article is in English and is about a site in Japan. My article is a translated summary of the Japanese Wikipedia article. Can I use references that are in Japanese? I look forward to your reply. Thanks.
Mo13Jan (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Mo13Jan: Yes, you can use references that are in Japanese, although English language references are preferred. This topic is discussed in more detail at WP:Verifiability#Non-English sources. By the way, if your draft is based on a translation of a Japanese Wikipedia article, that fact needs to be disclosed on the draft's Talk page. You can do so using the {{Translated page}} template. I'll be happy to add that template for you, if you'll let me know the title of the Japanese article that you used. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Silk_Music[edit]
Greetings NewYorkActuary,
Thank you for the time you invested in reviewing Draft:Silk_Music.
As per your recommendation, I have removed all Discogs references and replaced them with Beatport which is a digital music store where Silk Music sell their music. I kept only one external link to discogs.com
I hope this change is sufficient.
Thanks again,
00:07:47, 10 December 2016 review of submission by Lcb03[edit]
Hi, an actuary in New York indicates I should update the Pittsburgh-Gazette reference, but the blue box at the top of the page tells me that out of courtesy I shouldn't edit at this time. So.... not sure what to do. I wonder if it depends if the blue box is bigger on the inside.
- @Lcb03: Hello, Lcb. Sorry about the confusion. The "review waiting" box was put there by me to alert other reviewers that your draft was already being looked at. Feel free to continue work on the draft. I'll check back later today. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your comment on why our article was rejected. I'm completely new to wikipedia, so still learning. Everything is new to me! I really appreciate your time. I saw that you mentioned that some sections of the article were copy/pasted from iSPOT. That was not me, but another co-author to the page. It is all his own writing, so to us didn't seem like a problem to simply copy/paste since he is the author. However perhaps this is problematic for wikipedia? Regardless we have a 3rd co-author who will be redoing the history section in full soon, so its fine to simply delete it for now.
What I want to know is whether this is the reason this article was rejected, or whether there is a problem with the writing style of the sections that I added as the 'editor' said? This confused me because I couldn't detect a difference in style between my writing and that of other wikipedia articles that I was viewing.
Any advice would be much appreciated.
--Arebelo (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Arebelo: I've moved your posting from the top of the page down to here, which is where new Talk page posts are customarily entered. If you make your posting using the "New section" tab at the top of every Talk page, the software will do this for you automatically.
- On a more substantive note, I wasn't the person who declined your submission -- my only involvement was to remove the copyright-infringing material. As to that, I recognize that people often assume that they own copyright in the material that they have written, but that is not always the case. Here, the material appears on a web site for which copyright is claimed by the Open University. There's nothing unusual about that, because it is frequently the case that persons who publish in scholarly arenas are donating their work to the organization and thus relinquish any copyright claims they might otherwise have had (that was certainly the case for me when I had my work published in professional journals).
- As for the rest of the article, you'll need to do what all article creators need to do, which is to demonstrate that the subject of the article has received significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It might well be possible for you to do this. Indeed, I think it is likely that you will be able to do it. But the person who reviewed your draft didn't think you had done it so far. In order to convince the next reviewer, I offer two suggestions. First, get rid of the filler regarding the plant species. They don't contain information about the park itself and, in any event, already have extensive discussions in their own articles. Their inclusion here simply gives the appearance that you are trying to create an article about a topic for which there is nothing much to say. (I don't think that's actually true, but it is the impression it creates.) And second, you need to find -- and emphasize -- sources other than those written by your co-author. Sources attributable to your co-author will be viewed as "primary" sources and will almost certainly be discounted when assessing the notability of the topic.
- I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear NewYorkActuary, Thank you so much for your help and advice. I really appreciate it. I decided to talk directly to "ProgrammingGeek" (now that I know how). I feel like they are nitpicking, to be honest. And since they are currently "taking a break for exams", it seems like they're some young kid who perhaps enjoys the power they have a little too much... I am doing this article in my free time to try and contribute towards conservation in general, and hence writing the page on Tokai Park. Its a very special little nature reserve, which is certainly notable: for example it has more species per square km than even most rainforests! This is surely interesting information for an encyclopedia? I am a scientist and my time is limited, therefore I would appreciate more helpful comments from this 'reviewer' than general and vague statements about 'style' and 'conflict of interest'.
Anyway thank you for your tips on how to add a 'new section' to talk pages and for your much more specific help on a good way forward. I'll certainly be using this. I don't feel like the information on plants is a filler, given that this is what makes this park so special. I also give 8 different sources, which is more than most wiki pages can boast. Certainly only one of the references is actually written by my co-author, and this is a book -edited by other people. So certainly an objective reference... So all 7 other references are not "primary" or "conflicting".
Yours sincerely, Alanna --Arebelo (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)