User talk:NewYorkActuary/2016

Non-free rationale for File:Nehemiah Program logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Nehemiah Program logo.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Nehemiah Program logo.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nehemiah Program logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Irene Ryan

There is a bizarre YouTube channel which appears to display Ryan's death certificate. Place of birth is listed simply as "Texas", but it's less for that than simply the weirdness of the whole thing that I am mentioning it. I referenced it on the Ryan talk page. It's here, if you are interested. Yours, Quis separabit? 17:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadigan Kural

In researching, it seems there were some quite nasty scandals as release approached which impinged upon the planned release. Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Mexican state flags

If possible it would be great if you could check the Spanish wikipedia where many of the articles on state flags from Mexico were deleted because they are not official and because the user who created them did so without references and while being a promoter of certain proposals for official state flags. On this wiki the same user created several of the articles and also appears not to distinguish between the state coat of arms and the flag. Apparently a few states do have official flags that are separate from the coats of arms, but without real sources it is quite difficult to ascertain which are real flags and which are only proposed flags or complete hoaxes.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Maunus: Thanks for your message. I agree that the nominated articles were/are in rather poor shape. I'm also not suggesting that they should all be kept. The better approach is redirecting most of them to State flags of Mexico. Although that article was also in pretty bad shape (it was mostly a discussion of the coat of arms of one particular state), I've done some fixing-up so that it can serve as a central repository for the "official" flags, as well as any de facto flags that don't follow the "arms on white" formula (and all of this with proper sourcing, of course). By doing this, we'll have a set-up that is analogous to what we have for U.S. states (i.e., a user can type in Flag of (name of state) and either be taken to an article on that flag or to the centralized article).
The one article I'm leaning towards "keeping" is the one for Tlaxcala. I'll add my thoughts on that over at the AfD discussion.
I hope this response was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I hope you will also take into consideration the actual existence of reliable sources about each flag (and about the topic of state flags for Mexico), which is a basic requirement for any article on wikipedia. Any topic for which there is no, or only trivial, sources, does not merit an article in the encyclopedia. I have not been able to find real sources for any single one of the state flags.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the intrusion, the only real flags in State flags of Mexico are from Jalisco and Quintana Roo. Queretaro and Tamaulipas have no flag. States in México tend to present the shield on a banner, but not a single case the people or their Government recognize as a flag. In the current conditions the article spreads misinformation. You must be careful with the editions of Marrovi because he tends to distort information, currently he is blocked in Wikipedia in Spanish and now he edits more here. More than 170 articles created by Marrovi have been deleted in Wikipedia in Spanish, mainly by be hoaxes or primary sources, see here. The same problems have been repeated in the German and Italian versions. We have almost five months reviewing his articles, I recommend you to make a comprehensive review of his contributions. If you read Spanish o you kmow anyone who can do it, see here how five versions of the same article created by Marrovi present different and false data. English Wikipedia is facing a very serious problem.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

2016

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your will to include the url of the Scaruffi website for Jim Chappell. Your behaviour is wp:PUSH. Next time, you will be reported at a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Woovee (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Vote at RfA

Hello. Thank you for voting at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AustralianRupert. While you wrote that you oppose you did not give any reason. It is not required to leave a reason, however if you do not your vote will likely be given little to no weight during the close. What is worse the candidate has nothing of value to learn from. It would help you and the candidate a lot if you explained your reasoning. HighInBC 13:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Sided Amphora 63.1515

Thanks for your work updating these lists and notices, but please note that works of art like this should go on the visual arts list - here the history list is not necessary I think. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Johnbod: When I looked at the subject article, I wanted to sort it as "archaeological". There is no such category. But the Archaeology project is a sub-project to Project History, so "history" is an appropriate listing. I do confess, however, that I overlooked the artistic aspect of the object and that "visual arts" is also an appropriate listing. Thanks for backstopping that one. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Help please!

Hi, wondering if you can help, Huon is going through all the Teen USA state articles and removing items from the lists like hometowns, ages etc. All this stuff was painfully sourced from archived versions of the Miss Teen USA website, news articles, even in some cases watching the openings of pageants. It's been too long - well over five years - since I was actively involved enough to know the policies etc enough to fight this but I find it highly disruptive. I just feel powerless to deal with it because I'm too far removed from the days when I was really involved in debates of this sort! Any advice or support you can offer? He's undoing hours if not weeks of research and whilst I understand the need for sourcing etc I honestly think this is going too far. PageantUpdater (talk) 06:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

PageantUpdater I haven't taken a thorough look into the situation, but my initial impression is that the other editor probably is being disruptive. The provisions under WP:BLP that permit undiscussed removal apply to material that is contentious, and it's difficult for me to see how a person's hometown and age would be considered contentious. My feeling is that it would have been much more appropriate for that editor to tag the table(s) with a "refimprove" template.
A quick check of the other editor's talk page indicates that the removals did cease after you posted your complaint there. It also appears that you already know that restoring a previous (i.e., pre-edit) version of the table is a relatively quick way to undo those removals. Perhaps this will be the end of the situation and no further action will be required. If not, you might consider posting a complaint at WP:AIN. As I type this, there is already a complaint about another editor involved with pageant articles, so a reading of that discussion might be useful to you. Also, the noticeboard for BLP (WP:BLP/N) might be helpful, in that it will give an idea of the types of issues that create serious BLP concerns.
I hope this was helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Very helpful, thank you! I used to be right in the thick of this sort of thing once upon a time but now I'm lost, oops. PageantUpdater (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Following the most recent edits I have posted a complaint at WP:AIN. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
PageantUpdater I don't know how recently you checked the Nevada article, but I just reverted the second round of removals. I also left a comment on the article's Talk page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Well I just had my backside handed to me on AIN. Maybe leave a comment there as well? PageantUpdater (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Flags of country subdivisions (Oceania)

Hello! Your submission of Flags of country subdivisions (Oceania) 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! Axem Titanium (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

There are new issues with regard to this nomination. Please stop by at your earliest convenience. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:A.k.patel/sandbox

Hello NewYorkActuary, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:A.k.patel/sandbox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: "A" criterion do not apply to pages that are not in the main space. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. -- GB fan 00:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Angelica Russo-Pezzuli

Thanks for putting it up for speedy deletion. I wasn't sure what to do with it. It wasn't really me who created it, I just moved it from the talk page where the other editor placed it.*Trekker (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Robert Stewart

After seeing your mediation at Audio Fidelity, I thought about referring this guy to you. He's unhappy with the changes I made. Maybe you can give it a try, pass it along, or do nothing. It's all the same to me. I felt I ought to tell someone and I didn't know who else to tell. Thanks.
–Vmavanti (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for helping with this entry.
–Vmavanti (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Mrs Globe Classic draft

Hi is it possible to make this article that was deleted a draft please https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mrs_Globe_Classic I need to use the work for a related article Mrs Globe Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Australianblackbelt (talk • contribs) 21:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@Australianblackbelt: Sorry but, no, I am not able to do that. Your best bet will be to ask the administrator who deleted the article. That person's user name appears at the top of the deletion page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Understood thank you for your prompt reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by Australianblackbelt (talk • contribs) 21:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi NewYorkActuary,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nehemiah Corporation of America

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nehemiah Corporation of America you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nehemiah Corporation of America

The article Nehemiah Corporation of America you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Nehemiah Corporation of America for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nehemiah Corporation of America

The article Nehemiah Corporation of America you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nehemiah Corporation of America 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 Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Nehemiah Corporation of America at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

Question about Book of the Month page

Hi - Why did you make changes to the Book of the Month page? All of the information posted on there was correct. Please advise. Jld49 (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jld49. Many of the changes are explained in the Edit Summary -- our various rules do not allow you to put external links to the company within the text of the article (for which WP:LINKSPAM might provide useful guidance), nor do they allow using Wikipedia as a source or adding an external link that is already being used as a reference. My mention of "facts not in source" refers to your changing of the numbers in the second paragraph. My mention (in the summary) of WP:UNDUE does merit some discussion. There is no doubt that readers who want to learn about the club will benefit from learning that it has just instituted an annual award and that the club's members play a role in selecting the awardee. But you also provided a lot of additional detail that was about the award, and not the company itself. I'm speaking here of the details of the nomination process and the complete listing (with in-article links to the club's web site) of all of this year's finalists. That additional detail is what one would expect to find in an article about the award, but not in an article about the company. An article titled Book of the Year Award might well be an interesting one. And if you choose to write such an article, it would be the appropriate place for all of that extra detail.
I hope this response has been helpful. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)