User talk:Hoary/Archive33

Sorry!

• Hi, I apologize for my mistake. I interpreted your response wrongly. My intention was not to hurt your emotions or to test your patience. You are a senior editor and you have more experience in editing wikipedia than me. I hope you will forgive me (a learner). 😓😓(223.230.151.127 (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC))

Thank you for saying this. Actually I have a thick skin and wasn't offended, though yes, you did test my patience. Well, many people contributing to talk pages occasionally say things that they later regret. (Certainly I have done this.) You're right not to remove it; but you are welcome to strike it, and to add a comment. So for example if somebody's first, angry comment is

You are a bunch of idiots! [signature+timestamp]

then later, when they cool down, they're welcome to change it to:

You are a bunch of idiots! Sorry about that comment. I was annoyed when I wrote it. It's not what I believe, and I hope that we can work together. [original signature+timestamp] edited [new signature+timestamp]

For more, see WP:REDACT. (And incidentally, I'm not really "senior"; I've just been around a long time.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Sir, if you forgave me then please leave a "sorry accepted note" on talk:Shamsheer Vayalil to make my image clean so, that other editors don't have ill feelings for me. If you will not do this then they will boycott my requests. Sorry 😔 once again!!

(223.230.128.8 (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC))

Al Franken, and "minor" edits

The article on Franken rightly has a substantial section on "Sexual misconduct allegations". The introduction to the article rightly says that "Franken resigned on January 2, 2018, after several allegations of sexual misconduct were made against him." To me, this seems enough. Perhaps to you it does not. If it doesn't, please argue for this in Talk:Al Franken. And when you do edit articles, be candid in your edit summaries about what you are doing. This was not a "Minor edit to clarify one sentence and add references to current status of subject". The meaning of "minor edit" is explained here. -- Hoary (talk) 07:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC) Posted to User talk:Dale B. Phelps; pasted here by 8.46.95.20

I have no real interest in "arguing" (as you invited me to do on my "talk page.") My minor edit, to better summarize overall content, was just that, a minor edit that more completely, and appropriately summarized the articles content about the subject. You disagreed, and invited a pissing match over a subject that (ATMO) scarcely rates inclusion in wiki. No thank-you. -30- and "8.46.95.20 (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)" 8.46.95.20 (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

8.46.95.20 = Dale B. Phelps, the meaning of "minor edit" is explained here. Disagree with what it says? Then argue here for a change to it, and get agreement. Don't care how Wikipedia defines "minor" and want to use the term as you fancy? Then you'll be awarded this template; and if you persist, then a block for disruptive editing. -- Hoary (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for unprotection of The Rebel Media

Since you reverted my request for unprotection, that is removal of the move not the semi-protection, of The Rebel Media, which I'm not sure why, can you kindly un-move protect the page?

Thanks,
Doug Mehus T·C 13:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The page title is unfamiliar to me. A glance at its history suggests that you may have confused me with Bbb23, who s-protected the page till April. I see no reason to change its (very mild) level of move protection (or other protection), and have simply moved it and changed the WikiData record accordingly. -- Hoary (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hoary, That works for me. I have no problem with the page being semi-protected until April due to the persistent vandalism issues. My thinking was that I should request only unprotection for the move protection to facilitate the response in a more expedient fashion. Nonetheless, I appreciate you moving the page. Doug Mehus T·C 13:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Sicilian Baroque nominated for Featured Article Review

I have nominated Sicilian Baroque for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Beland (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Shamsheer Vayalil editor again

Hello, there have been two new accounts editing the page, again demonstrating the same levels of competence and making similar edits to the three blocked accounts. I gave the first one the benefit of the doubt even though they sneaked the degrees back into the infobox after fiddling with the parameters. The second one, I'm more sure (as I can be at this stage) that it is yet another incarnation. It has made similar edits to the others, including disruptive ones to Zuckerberg's page (again) and the two new accounts are also talking to each other. Should these newer accounts be reported to SPI (not something I have experience of)? Eagleash (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip: I've blocked User:786 harsh life. One of the people he pleaded with for help hs himself been given a short block (not by me) for something else. If you notice a similar plea for help, then you might inform me or some other admin, or post to WP:ANI; you could also respond to the plea with a comment such as [[User:Whatevershislatestname]] is merely the latest sockpuppet of somebody whose other user IDs have been blocked. To learn more, please read [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1028#The_person,_or_persons,_keen_to_edit_Shamsheer_Vayalil|this]]. -- Hoary (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you; Yes I was following the ANI (I've been 'involved' with the 'Shamsheer problem' since last May when the help desk was disrupted with persistent incompetent requests) and was disappointed but not surprised, when the thread got archived without any input. ANI does not seem to react to this kind of 'low-level' disruption no matter how long it has gone on for. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It's good to see that not everybody falls for this person's pleas. Example. -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible sock of...

There's an editor here who seems nothing but disruptive so far. Some of their efforts have been deleted, but they persist in creating article and article-type material mainly in user space. (including pasting their own name into the article about Virat Kohli and submitting it). In some of these they claim to be a 14-year-old boy from Bihar. Coincidence? Probably, but.. Cheers, Eagleash (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Sock puppet Anon IP.

Hello, Care to take a look:

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/176.88.143.228

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/110.168.30.203

This is a mayor issue now. Look for my User page to learn all this guys Sock puppets. And all his personal attacks and accustions.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fatima Bakery and Store (March 8)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by DGG was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Hoary! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I saw your note to the original contributor didn't realize it was you who submitted it last--if you want me to put it in main space and see what the consensus is, I will-- DGG ( talk ) 09:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

DGG, increasingly these days, I like to put something in article-space when it's good and ready (example), so I don't mind. More sources and material really ought to be presented; and if these don't exist, the article shouldn't either. That said, there do seem to be an awful lot of useless stubs. While "there's loads of other crap out there" is an argument that shouldn't be used, I do wonder if en:WP isn't too forbidding to newcomers who mean well, are willing to do some conscientious work, but who aren't willing to immerse themselves in library research, scrupulous referencing, etc, for their very first articles. (I've a hunch that some of my earliest creations wouldn't meet your standards or mine today even in their present state; but if I hadn't perpetrated them then I wouldn't have hung around and later written stuff that's much better.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Much more than notability, I'm concerned about promotionalism. It doesn't matter much if the boundary for an article is set a little higher or lower; it matters critically that we not become a medium for advertising. The reason for raising the standard for articles is that promotionalism and borderline notability tend to go together. But many new editors fall into a mode of writing like press releases, because they see so much of it in Wikipedia--and in the world. After all these years, I can sometimes tell that an editor must be a press agent, and I can sometimes tell that even a new editor is not, but there are many where I can not securely distinguish, and I know I have made mistakes in both directions--and of course it is the ones where I incorrectly call someone a paid editor that really trouble me. It would help if we had a more objective standard of notability that easily-available-references, but though I will continueto try every fe years, I doubt we'll change. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

One key is perhaps your "and in the world", above. Let's consider India. Despite its august title, The Times of India will tailor its news for payment. But it seems that for some en:WP editors this is outweighed by the paper's age and ... augustness, let's call it. And in the Indian context, there's nothing unusual about ToI. I'll concede that ToI puts some effort into the appearance of a news organ by and for intelligent people. (Well, more often than not. Here's one exception among many.) Some months back I happened to be looking at a WP article about some Nigerian subject; as all the sources looked worthless, I thought I'd look for one or two better alternatives. I failed to find a single Nigerian website, with or without mention of that particular subject, that seemed to merit any serious attention. I presume that a large percentage of Wikipedia's editors arrive with no experience of trustworthy sources. (And their experience of "education" may just be the dutiful regurgitation of what they were told in class.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

And let's consider Saudi Arabia... I think that teaching really good critical thinking about sources of information is one of Wikipedia's most useful contributions. For West African topics, French-language sources are often useful. It is very difficult to cover topics which are not of interest to anyone with the ability to report independently on them, even if they are regional issues that would be notable if they happened in, say, France. I found myself a while ago failing to find sources establishing the notability of a diet-based illness fairly widespread among poor people in Africa; there were passing mentions, and almost no MEDRS. HLHJ (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Teikō Shiotani

Hello! Your submission of Teikō Shiotani 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! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Question

based on your question sir,

You suggest that you're working on a biography. At the top of your user talk page, you write "Working on creating a client biography". Do you mean that you're working, or that you're intending to work, on the biography of somebody who is a client of yours? -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's a client biography — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViciousProxy (talk • contribs) 06:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to the question at the Teahouse (and quoting me from there). I've responded at the Teahouse. Please see my response there. And if anything is unclear, please ask there (not here). -- Hoary (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Simple requests at the help desk

Hi, the situation with this editor has been ongoing since 2015. Multiple editors have tried to assist and / or asked for an explanation. The editor has an account but more often edits whilst 'logged out' (multiple IPs). The account TP has multiple comments about their level of competence and there was an ANI which had no result. It has largely been felt, I believe, that the editor is a net positive and HD volunteers usually just fix the edits. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm newish to the Help desk, Eagleash, so I didn't know. Thank you for telling me. When I asked the question, I was aware that there might be a very unusual browser, perhaps dictated by physiological factors, so I tried to word the question openly and courteously. What worries me more is the nature of the article(s). I mean, Berney baronets: I see nothing there of notability, aside perhaps from claims that these people built or lived in this or that house -- houses that don't seem to have yet merited Wikipedia articles. Why do we spend our time attending to requests to make trivial changes on articles that are no more than stately, historical soap operas? -- Hoary (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree about the notability of some of the pages they contribute to. Their interest in the UK Royal Family and almost anything vaguely connected with it seems almost obsessive. I do find their constant requests for simple fixes and failure to heed advice frustrating, but 'go with the flow' and fix them where I can. The née question is nothing new; a 'sample' was left at the account TP in 2015 for them to copy and paste... but, well... no. However, I too, feel that there's possibly something we are unaware of hampering their ability and / or confidence. Eagleash (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I wish the user well, but I'll ignore them, unless either (a) I get an answer to my earlier question, or (b) there's a nontrivial request for an article that I happen to think is worthwhile. Still, I have to concede that the user provides less to complain about than do one person after another whose squawking boils down to "I'm fascinating and important! Remove these barriers to the posting of my PR puff on this website!" -- Hoary (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Teikō Shiotani

On 7 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Teikō Shiotani, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Teikō Shiotani photographed View with Weather Forecast (shown) from his upstairs window, exaggerating the curvature of the horizon by bending the photographic paper under the enlarger? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Teikō Shiotani. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Teikō Shiotani), 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.

--valereee (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Blimey! Um, I mean, thank you, Valereee. -- Hoary (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll be interested to see how many views it gets, as the photo seems really high-interest to me :) --valereee (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the photograph is of some interest, but it's disappointingly goatless. Not so many hits, I imagine. -- Hoary (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

There's only been one attempt at vandalizing, so I presumed that it had attracted little interest. But 4600 4400 views already, a veritable cynosure. (These days, perhaps even the vandals are enfeebled.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Only four thousand four hundred and something. Fail! -- Hoary (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a little disappointing for an image slot. I'm surprised. But I'm terrible at predicting what will attract interest and what won't. --valereee (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I can't immediately find when Goat tower appeared and thus can't find the number of pageviews that it got. Call this N. Call the number of visible goats g. Therefore per capita goat dividend (Ɣ) = (N − 4400) ÷ g. We know that g=4; therefore Ɣ = N/4 − 1100. Hoary (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

lol...the goat tower is due to appear on May 4, as I requested that date. Maths to come. :D --valereee (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes! Now I remember that. -- Hoary (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Mändly to Maendly

Thanks for the modification

I try to use the same pseudo in all the "wikipedia" portal (Otherwise I'm going crazy).

My complete profile is here : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:SFCCF

I'm a fans of women soccer since 23 years but my job, is in the Geneva Airport :-) Sandy plays not in Servette FC but in Servette Fooball Club Chênois féminin https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servette_football_club_ch%C3%AAnois_f%C3%A9minin (page to be approuve this week ;-)) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%C3%A9gorie:Joueuse_du_Servette_FC_Ch%C3%AAnois

It's possible to have the same login in all wikipedia ? I know, there is a lot of rules and not the same rules in all wikipedia but is the same aim, no ?

I'm not a bad guys, sure, i'm 47 years old and i have no time to be a bad guys :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFCCF (talk • contribs) 23:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Hoary/unprotected. SFCCF, you should be able to post here; there ought to be no need (right now) for User talk:Hoary/unprotected. Let's continue the discussion here. I think I understand what you're saying above, but I need a little time to think about the best reply. Please be patient. -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

In French there one expression "Too many rules kill the rules" "Trop de règles tuent les règles| Trop d'informations tuent les informations". Don't worry, "la patience est la mère des vertues / Patience is the mother of virtues"... not sure the translation is correct but I try:-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFCCF (talk • contribs) 23:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Your translation is good, SFCCF, but for some reason "Patience is the mother of all virtues" is slightly more standard. (May I say, la patience est l'Ève mitochondriale des vertues?) But back to business. Special:CentralAuth/SFCCF shows that you haven't made a great number of edits anywhere. There are several things you can do. (Let's use "GOODNAME" to mean a username that (i) you like and (ii) will be acceptable in the French-, Italian-, and English language Wikipedias.)

• Stop using the name SFCCF anywhere, and instead think of, and use, GOODNAME. If you wish, log in as SFCCF one last time, in order to announce on all three of Utilisateur:SFCCF, User:SFCCF and Utente:SFCCF that you are now GOODNAME.
• Read the page Demande de renommage de compte utilisateur, and then click on the link "Formuler une demande..." for a change (everywhere) from SFCCF to GOODNAME.
• On the page RFC/User names, apply for permission to keep using the name SFCCF, pointing out that the name has been used on French- and Italian-language Wikipedias without any problem, and that the restrictions in English-language Wikipedia come as an unwelcome surprise to you. As part of your appeal, offer to point out wherever/whenever appropriate that you don't represent the organization SFCCF.

I'd recommend either the first or the second of these. -- Hoary (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank's a lot for the suggestion I begin with the third, because SFCCF his my own creation for the acronyme of Servette Football Club Chênois féminin ;-). I am a volunteer who campaigned for the development of Women's Football in Geneva and this nickname corresponds to me. For that I would like to keep it as much as possible :-) This guiy is me https://www.proxifoot.ch/new/2017/02/salvatore-musso-les-recrues-vont-beaucoup-nous-apporter/ Salvatore (talk to me) 11:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

do it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names

Good luck with it. ¶ More importantly, you mention that you're working at Geneva airport. I hope that conditions there (for both job security and health) are good. -- Hoary (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

photography
... you were recipient no. 2195 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, thank you, Gerda. Recently I've so been busy preparing for a different way of working (for money) -- not meeting people, whereas before it was all about meeting people -- that I've had little time. No edits here of any significance since this one two months ago. But I hope to be back. -- Hoary (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, thank you for welcoming me. I want to ask if you can help me review a page that I created? I have posted about it on the help desk too. I want to bring my knowledge of banking, finance, politics, and human rights here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FZR2020 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no: I'm not going to review it, because it's about a subject of which I know nothing and for which some knowledge is needed. Good luck with it! -- Hoary (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou!

Thankyou for understanding me. That were my past mistakes and childish behaviours. Even after creating first and second socks, I never intended to destructive editing and any promotions. I may be banned from Wikipedia anytime so I thought to thank you. — GargAvinash ^talk 15:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Johnluvis

Hey, Here's an unusual one. I rejected this editor's sandbox draft (they keep meddling with my attempts to clean it up for them but that's a separate issue). Then I noticed that they copied all my userboxes and user infobox from my own userpage to theirs. They made some minor changes to dates and locations and the content is displayed at their userpage with user rights they don't have etc. (although not hard to spot for most people I expect). I was tempted to delete it but not certain of my ground as in userspace "Db-something" could apply I suppose? I have left a message at their TP but no response. Any advice? Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Deleted. (I think "hoax" can cover creation of a fictitious Wikipedia editor.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Excellent; thanks! Eagleash (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

note re your page

Hi Hoary. I just happened upon your user page, after seeing your comments at the Help Desk in a section immediately above a question that I just posted there. I just wanted to say hi, and to tell you that I admire your edits, as well as your approach to the details posted at your user page. I really like the way that you have laid out your editing philosophy here, and I enjoyed seeing the numerous edits reflected by your barnstars. I appreciate all your apparent efforts here. I think you've given me some ideas that I may try out sometime, for my own user page sometime. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, but I have you perhaps mixed me up with somebody else? I don't think I've described any editing philosophy; and one simple reason for this is that I don't think I have one. Still, if somebody does enjoy my user page, they're most welcome to the enjoyment. -- Hoary (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

A COVID-19 category is red

Look at your response here. Yes, I'm way behind. It used to be the Teahouse where I was behind but they changed their archive structure.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Very Unwelcome

Hi Hoary, in this message if I sond rude it is intentional. I am the person who keeps editing the wiked wikipedia page, I would like to say that Wicked is a common phrase in New England. Maybe before calling out someones edit you should do some reasarch, dum dum. I would like to say you are a shame to the whole wikipedia comunity. Please respond to my message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HairyLittleMan (talk • contribs) 04:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

HairyLittleMan, sorry for my comment on your talk page the other day: you caught me in a bad mood. Of course "wicked" means what you say it means: quite often I've heard it used in this way myself. And it's in Merriam Webster. Offhand I don't know if it's commoner in New England than anywhere else, but I'm willing to believe that it is.

Here's the thing. This is an encyclopedia. It's very big, and it's getting bigger, but there's no goal of covering everything that anyone could say anything about. The organization that hosts Wikipedia also hosts Wiktionary, a dictionary, which does have an entry for "wicked". Normally Wikipedia doesn't have entries for particular words. Yes, there's an article titled Evil; but it's not about the word "evil", it's instead about a concept that's often expressed with the word "evil" but doesn't have to be: in Japanese it's aku, and there are near-synonyms for it even in English ("wickedness", etc).

And in its disambiguation pages, Wikipedia doesn't list articles that don't exist (even if they should exist).

I hope that all is clear now. -- Hoary (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hoary, thank you very much for the apology, sorry for the rude message I was also in bad mood. If you want you can delete my rude message I did not mean what I said.

Best regards, HairyLittleMan

Wikidata and the Help Desk

You answered someone's question about Wikidata, and someone else asked a very complicated question about Wikidata that didn't get an answer. Could you go here and see if you can answer the question or find someone who can? Thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I've responded there. -- Hoary (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Response to Been Sanctioned?

Thanks for reconfirming. But, I can't access the article's talk nor my watchlist responses. Which means what, exactly? And for what period of time? Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion in one place. -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, can't seem to reply to you at oneplace. Tried. But, yes, still can't access talk. Can read watchlist list, but not access info in actual posts. (Apologies if lack of knowledge prevented reply at oneplace.) Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Five minutes after posting what's immediately above, you did manage to post there. So I replied there. We'll keep the discussion in one place. -- Hoary (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

File Gheorghe Buzoianu.pdf

Thank you for your reply and advice. Domnica Lungu (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

YGM!

Hello, Hoary. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

More mail

Hello, Hoary. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Bishonen | tålk 20:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC).

A pie for you!

Dear Hoary, I was looking back through the Help Desk archive, hopeless of finding an answer to my question. It made my day to see your answer and help. Thank you for your service to Wikipedia, keep up the good work. Mohammad 19:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Munch munch, burp (excuse me!), thank you. I'm glad I could help you, Mohammad. Unfortunately I am very ignorant about Iran; but I'd be surprised if the coverage of Iran in en:Wikipedia is much good. It probably needs all the Persian-reading help that it can get. -- Hoary (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The Day Has Finally Arrived! (A Thank You To Hoary)

Hoary, I want to thank you for helping me relocate the page Draft:Mark Gillespie from (music producer) to (music manager). The original draft was moved by an admin to (music producer). However, the draft contained no text or cited source suggesting the subject was about music production. The admin then denied the article, stating it did not meet the musical notability criteria needed for a music producer. After various Talks about how I deemed it an inaccurate move without basis, the admin explained that they did not see the difference between production of music and business of music. Although the differences were explained in detail, the admin yielded yet refused to move the article to its correct location. Whether this was because the admin forgot or refused under malice, I never thought the day would come where I would see the draft moved. Enter, user Hoary. Now, I finally feel confident in my resubmitting.

All of that being said, I thank you. 2020 Isn’t all bad. Bouncecouncil (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, good luck -- though I still recommend that you change "legendary superclub" to "club". -- Hoary (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Forensic Oceanography

Hello. Would you be so kind as to delete the redirect Forensic Oceanography, so as to make way for Draft:Forensic Oceanography please? Thank you. -Lopifalko (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Done! -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Ariko Inaoka

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		For your devoted recovery work on the Ariko Inaoka article. Netherzone (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

And thank you for your contribution, particularly for finding a copyleft photo of the soba place and having it successfully get through the Commons hoops. Well well, so the article has been OK'd -- and it wasn't long ago that it had a speedy delete template stuck on it. I'd rather like to push the article through didja-know (compare this); but if there's more about her then it would be in subscription-only newspaper archives, requiring a visit to a library. The problem with Japanese photography is that there's very little on the web about it. If it were European or American, there could be newspaper articles and substantial commentary in blogs by people whose opinions are known to merit consideration (although of course such blogs are ever less numerous); in Japan, the newspaper articles aren't on the web and the blogs are numerous but tend to be anonymous and to have feeble content. (Oh, and now Asahi Camera has expired.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

So much good info to digest. Will have a look at these links for sure. Ever onward! Netherzone (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hoglin2020

A tag has been placed on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hoglin2020 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

This message was automatically delivered by QEDKbot. 20:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Request on 15:15:25, 15 August 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Gammajv

• Gammajv (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Steven Paul Carver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Thanks for your review of my submission for Steven Paul Carver. I see that you question the contents of the site "Invaluable.com". This is an independent site. I assume you clicked on the "more details" button to see the information about Mr. Carver. I agree that the content was probably written by him at some point, as most artists and authors are asked to write their own bios quite often.

The reason I included so many references was that I have been consistently asked to provide more references, so I carefully looked at each reference I had and included it next to as many facts as I could find in that reference. Should I use it less often if the fact is referenced somewhere else?

Thanks,

Joy

Gammajv (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. The matter of presenting too many citations is discussed in Wikipedia:Citation overkill. The invaluable.com page isn't usable as a reference. If it were, it could be cited numerous times; but it isn't, so it shouldn't be cited at all. ¶ Let's take an example of the content of the article:

• "Their work on Face Factory, a database for building digital portraits, was featured in Wired Magazine." In that article, did Skaggs say anything that would help us understand Carver? If he did, use it; if he didn't, don't mention the featuring.
• "His cover art for the album The Best of Kansas has been thoroughly analyzed by those seeking to identify all the hidden visual references to all previous albums released by the group."
• "During the 1990s Carver produced art for many book publishing houses": For the covers? (If for something else, then for what?) Evidence, or examples, please.

Another matter. You have made quite a lot of edits to English-language Wikipedia. All seem to have been directly related to Carver. This surprises me. Please read and think hard about Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. -- Hoary (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest (Draft:Adrian Arguedas Ruano)

Hello. thanks for your respond. How I declare that i am not getting paid for creating an article.... actually, this is going to be my first article, I am doing this for an artist that i know, it would be based on multiple articles and books about his career. I work in a totally different field. I am not a philologist or literature professional, I don't even like that, I don't read books, and I am not a writer... i just like challenges and if I can help somebody I would do my best to do it..... Now, should I add a link to the article probing that I am not getting paid for this...? Joannych Joannych (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

"I am doing this for an artist that i know": then, as this explains, you have a conflict of interest. -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Your help needed re. the article on Anna van Egmont

I might need your help to stop someone obviously starting an edit war in this article, and precisely this paragraph. In spite of my arguments, and invitations to discuss facts on the talk page, in the dedicated section I created for him after already a few reverts from him ( Second section called "Do not start an edit war on wrong definitions"), he keeps reverting and bringing provocations without answers to the points If and when you have time, I will appreciate that you intervene. Thanks in advance, Rgds, --Emigré55 (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you also mentioning you highly aggressive behaviour and your personal attacks? And the fact that you - while still in discussion - call a 2-1 majority a consensus? The Banner talk 19:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I have responded (at some length) on Talk:Anna van Egmont. That's where any further discussion should take place. -- Hoary (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

About Remi

Yes, you are right. From his 63 year long coaching career, we should just focus on those 2 years, that are r elated to BALCO. Sounds right. Radspeed (talk) 09:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have made an extraordinary misinterpretation of my comment at the "teahouse". If you want to comment, please do so either there or on the talk page of the relevant article. -- Hoary (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Request on 12:41:44, 6 September 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Broadfields

• Broadfields (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Norman Maurice Kadish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear "Hoary",

Thanks for your comments on my draft.

As a new contributor, I confused Wikipedia's specific uses of the terms "References" and "Sources". I am now confining myself to "References" (effectively footnotes) and "External Links" at the foot of the article. Having no previous experience of coding, I think that I have managed to use the referencing code more or less correctly although there are a couple of specialist queries that you may be able to help me with.(eg 2 editions of the same book. I am also unable to delete the references that I put in the wrong place. Thanks. Broadfields (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Broadfields, I have tidied the draft somewhat. You can see all my changes here, but this doesn't show why I made them. For explanations, please click on this, read the summary (in italics, towards the top right of the page), click on "Next edit →", and repeat, again and again. I've left a single, very minor question -- One publisher in one year, or another publisher in another year? (Or is Worldcat mistaken?) -- in a comment half hidden within the draft. But there are far bigger questions. Here, after slight reformatting, is a sample:

In the 1960s, Kadish began a masterly Biblical Cycle, of five paintings, based on stories in the Hebrew Bible: [list of five] / Drawing exclusively on the "Old Testament" for his subject matter reflected his Jewish background. This is especially obvious in Jacob and the Angel (1964) where the angel is depicted as an incorporeal golden mist, much more in keeping with the non-representational Jewish religious tradition than the winged men of Renaissance Art.

What is your reference for any of this? And in particular, who say(s) it's "masterly" and where? But don't tell me; instead, please add references for it to the draft. What lacks references (to independent, reliable, published sources) should be removed. -- Hoary (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: Slavko Kopač (Croatian artist)

Thanks! Will take a look and try to iron out the remaining issues.

Would you be willing to review the submission again once I'm done? GregorB (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course, GregorB. Ping me when you think you've done just about all that you can do, and then I'll take a look and we can discuss how to go forward. I hope and expect that this can not just scrape through promotion to article, but instead be a pretty good piece of work. -- Hoary (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Draft: Charles Tracy (art historian)

Hello! Thanks so much for your feedback on Draft: Charles Tracy (art historian). The piece was put together by a very new wikipedia editor, so this was all really good feedback for her! I and another person have helped to adjust the article, I hope in line with your suggestions. Thank you for all the tips! KerstingFan (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

A pleasure. And now the draft has been promoted. (But what's a "heritage consultant"?) NB this article (like that on the other Charles Tracy) is an "orphan"; so see if you can helpfully link to it from other articles. -- Hoary (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Dillian Gordon

Hello, and thank you for your comment about the articles. I included so many because they were written for two serious academic journals in the field of art history, and help to show the depth and breadth of Dr Gordon's scholarship and art historical activities, alongside her many years of curatorial work for the National Gallery, and in addition to the books she has written and co-written. I hope this helps to clarify. I'm grateful for your input - thank you! CourtauldGill (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

CourtauldGill, let me recycle something I wrote in what's now an archived talk page for the article on somebody who's totally unrelated to Gordon:

It's most unusual to list academic papers unless either these papers have been unusually influential or the writer is unusually eminent. If a writer is celebrated to an extraordinary degree (Einstein, Chomsky, etc), then there may be a separate article listing the papers. I'm no expert in IR (or physics), but I do know something about linguistics. In particular, I can rattle off a list of eminent anglophone linguists. Here are a few: Kenneth L. Hale, James Hurford, Geoffrey Leech, John Lyons, James D. McCawley, Frederick Newmeyer, Geoffrey K. Pullum, Larry Trask. Linguists disagree among themselves, sometimes violently; but I think that any linguist would concede that all of these eight are notable in their way. There's no list of papers either within the article on any of these or (cf "List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein") constituting a supplement to the article.

Unquote. Six years later, there's still no list of papers in any of these.

A reasonable objection would be that each of these articles is somewhere between "very poor" and "mediocre", and thus that the lack of a list of papers could merely be the result of Wikipedia editors' laziness or incompetence. So let's turn to articles on established architecture historians. Erwin Panofsky, Rudolf Wittkower, Nikolaus Pevsner, Mark Girouard: none of these articles comes with a list of articles by the biographee (even a list of selected articles).

How about writing, where appropriate, something like She has also published on [one subject],[one or two examples as references] [second subject],[one or two examples as references] and [third subject].[one or two examples as references]? -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Oswaldo Castro Intriago

Hi Hoary. Since you've reviewed Draft:Oswaldo Castro Intriago and seem to be trying to help sort it, I just though I'd let you know about User talk:Oscar Waldoosty#Conflict of interest editing for a little more background on the draft and it's creator; that might explain why the references seem overly primary or as "digressive notes" as you pointed out. Having a COI shouldn't be reason why this draft can't perhaps someday become an article, but it might explain all of the detail the draft contains as well as the sources being cited. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up, Marchjuly. I'm not at all surprised: I'd rather assumed it. And I think you handled the matter very well. ¶ I've no regrets about having characterized the content as "fascinating". Unfortunately, very much of it is unlikely to have alternative, verifiable sources, and if it indeed doesn't have them then will have to be cut. -- Hoary (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I didn't think there was anything wrong with you refering to the draft "fascinating"; it does seem like the subject led quite an interesting (perhaps even a Wikipedia notable) life. I just wasn't sure if you were aware that the creator has stated that he is the subject's son. Anyway, this might be a case where the subject did receive significant coverage in relibale sources (including non-English ones) well before the Internet Age; so, tracking them down might be a bit hard. There doesn't appear to be a Spanish Wikipedia written about him, but that might not mean much. Googling the name does get some hits, but most of them are in Spanish (which I don't understand) and some might be for a different person with the same name. Maybe someone from WP:ECU or WP:SPAIN could help sort this out? It might be better to have someone familiar with the general subject matter to go over the draft and cleanup (trim?) anything that can't be properly sourced or which might be tad bit not NPOV due to the COI. I was thinking about suggesting that to the creator, but not sure if such a thing might be taken the wrong way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Or daughter? (The draft is oddly silent about the biographee's family, but his daughter translated his novel, and she speaks of siblings.) If there's an NPOV problem, Marchjuly, I don't think it's a major one; by contrast, the problem of unsourced material is huge here. The contributor is moving the draft in the right direction -- but at the current rate, the job will take years; and anyway I imagine that a lot of the material will simply be unsourceable. I'd been thinking of holding off for a couple of weeks and then politely but firmly reminding the contributor that anything that can't be sourced to material that's publicly available has to be cut, and offering to do the job of cutting myself. ¶ I confess that I'd like to see an article about the man. He's not conventionally "notable" (he's not a celeb); but (removing my Wikipedia hat for a moment) I think he's far more notable than are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of sportspeople, reality TV stars, talk radio jocks, voice actors, "playmates" and so forth who easily clear the notability guidelines that WP has for them. -- Hoary (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course, it could be his daughter; I shouldn't have assumed it was his son. I think your "plan" of waiting a while sounds good; they do seem to be moving in the right direction and trying to do things according to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I think the only thing I would press them on would be to WP:DECLARECOI in a more formal way rather than in just some obscure user talk pages, but that can probably wait until the draft is accepted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary (talk) and Marchjuly (talk) for your kind words and assessment on the draft. Please don't give up on me. I am working on eliminating unsourceable material and including only verifiable ones. I have already received the photographer's (my brother) permission to use the photo "Castro with Montecristi hat" and he has filled out and sent his release to Wikimedia Commons as advised. I have also received the OK from Wikipedia media editors to publish a cut-up photo of my father's handwritten newspaper El Iris since 70 years have passed since the death of the author, my father's teenage co-journalist, Bolaños. It will not take years for me to fix the draft. I understood that I had six months to work on it and make it suitable for publication. I have been trying to access the editing function of my draft, but nothing I do seems to work. I left a message to that effect at the Teahouse. Please advise me as to how I can make the needed changes. I welcome any input, including trimming, from Wikipedia Ecuador and Wikipedia Spain and from you. Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Oscar Waldoosty, I'm definitely not even thinking of giving up on the draft or its creator! There's no six-month limit on the total time; rather, there's a limit of six months on a period with no edits (by humans). If you're approaching any limit such as this, you'll get a warning message on your talk page. If you don't respond to this, then yes, the draft will be "deleted". I put that in scare quotes (or, here, in reassurance quotes), because "deletion" doesn't actually mean deletion: although you can't see a "deleted" draft, it still exists and you can ask for it to be restored so that you can continue to work on it. ¶ I don't intend to trim anything substantive until it becomes clear that you won't be able to find Wikipedia-acceptable sources for it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC) slightly revised 00:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Where's the Wikipedia markup for a 'sigh of relief'? When I couldn't access the editing function of my draft I thought an evil bot had blocked me :-) Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Oscar Waldoosty, I've been away from any computer for a couple of days. "[T]rying to access the editing function of my draft, but nothing I do seems to work": Have all the technical troubles (whether apparent or real) disappeared in the meantime? -- Hoary (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they have. Thank you also for changing Castro's name for the draft. I didn't know how to do that. Also how to put online newspaper sources correctly. I'll try fixing a few tomorrow. Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Hoary (talk) and Marchjuly (talk) for helping me optimize my article. It was accepted yesterday. Oscar Waldoosty (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your energy and patience, Oscar! I enjoyed reading the draft even when I declined it, and hoped then that declining it wouldn't dissuade you from working on it. I'm delighted to see it accepted. -- Hoary (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

KathleenKathleen12345

Is there any way that this block could be made an indefinite one given their disturbingly Karenesque behaviour? I don't think they're going to do anything but the exact same content removal and screed-posting once that 31h expires. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 12:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I too can speculate on what is likely to happen 31 hours from now, and indeed what might happen before then. But I'm not going to. If something calls for a second, longer block, or a lengthening of the block, then this can be done. Incidentally, I'm about to go to bed: if during the next few hours any admin believes they have reason to extend the block in any way, they needn't attempt to ask me about it but instead can just go ahead. -- Hoary (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

That Lupton editor

I've wondered (for some time actually!) whether the difficulty here is a vision issue. Using some kind of software to read our posts to them and perhaps another type to edit or reply. I've noticed idiosyncratic misspellings over the years; E.g. recent writing of my username as 'Eglish' even though it was correctly rendered only 2 lines above. That's how it might sound if read 'phonetically' as it were (it's actually Eagle-ash, but that's not important right now!) And possibly David Biddulph as 'Birrulph' (amongst other versions). If they'd say what the issue is it would be better all round. Eagleash (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed those typos, Eagleash, let alone thought of that explanation. But now that you bring it up, it does sound plausible. However, even if it's correct, there's a lot that it doesn't explain (such as the usual failure to log in). The additional problem that I have is, well, what it's all about. The latest concerned a suggestion to further read A Regal Yorkshire Family Tree - Blood Relations: The Barons Airedale and the Middleton Family (a book that has so far eluded the attention of amazon.co.uk, any library that contributes to Worldcat, or indeed almost anywhere else). Each to their taste, and I imagine that mere sanity needn't prevent mild interest in somebody who happens to be named Airedale (if available for humans as well as dogs) or Middleton; but what mention of it is doing in a Wikipedia article I don't know. I've just looked up my own surname (for I think the first time ever): the "article" on it consists of a very short introduction and a disambiguating list, all adding up to about 2 kB, which I think is about right for something titled Wikipedia and not WikiSocialClimbing, and which I have no wish to augment. -- Hoary (talk) 07:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, weve wondered about their obsession with minor aristos previously; any connection with the UK Royal Family (especially the Duchess of Cambridge's relatives) etc. Its not quite an SPA but...

The account; well, may be just not bothering – easier to just turn up and edit; although I also wonder if they think they're somehow 'hiding' by not using it. Has been known to edit logged-in and then come to the HD as an IP.

They also say 'the ref is in red' when there's an error msg as if they can't read it. If they would tell us (for instance) 'I'm partially sighted and I have an adapted device' (or whatever the situation is) other editors would be understanding I'm sure. Eagleash (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I would certainly be sympathetic if they have vision issues, but there is still a certain set of skills needed to participate here; they still need to heed advice they are being given. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes very much agree there is still a level of competence needed; they shouldn't continually make work for other editors. But, if they'd explain the issue (it's their choice if they wish to keep it private) it would probably benefit all involved. Eagleash (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I had the thought about a physical issue and, at one point, tried to further explore the claim that they could not solve some seemingly simple errors "with the device they're using", but got nowhere. Another thing that happens a fair amount is the insertion of multiple spaces between words, which normally means an OCR scan of justified text (i.e. plagiarism), but I don't think I was able to find any of that either. As far as the non-logged-in editing, most of their contribs are from the IP address, and I think by now, anyone who cares knows the addresses on sight. The address is relatively stable, so I guess we could write on their IP talk page to communicate with them, and/or note on the user's talk page that there's a note on the IP talk page. I'm sure I've tried some combination of those with the usual frustration of lack of response. These questions seem to be key:

1. Is there a content problem here? Do we want/need this (to me) tediously detailed, even trivial content about this family and all it's splendid branches and leaves? If not, the rest doesn't matter.
2. Is there an editing disability we should be sensitive to, and in what way? Is there technology or are there like-affected editors that can be brought / should be asked to aid?
3. Do we need to put our foot down about the logged-out editing? Is there a legitimate reason for it (like maybe the username is too real-life-identifiable, and why not just WP:CHU then)?
4. The help requests need to go to the relevant article talk pages (not a question), if only to keep them grouped together. If someone like Eagleash (who has been quietly serving the editor's needs while some of us whine ) wants to watchlist the relevant pages and answer them, I'm sure I can help out when I can as well (it's not that much work, at least now), as long as the other questions above are resolved. I've done as much and more for others with trouble adapting to some of our intricacies.

My underlying concern through all this (and those of others, too) has been that we're being asked to mop up after someone who can't be bothered. I have plenty of doubt that that's what's happening here. Those are my thoughts. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll try to comment on the first three of AlanM1's points.

1. I'd say that yes there is and that no I don't. But I can't speak for "we". First, despite WP:NOTINHERITED, inherited notability is de facto a strong argument for article retention. Consider the unremarkable (her progeny aside) Mary Anne MacLeod Trump. AfD? Snow keep! Or Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia -- which, if warranted at all, I'd have thought better titled Georg Friedrich (pretender). (FFS there isn't even a "Prussia" to have princes.) And with British royals and their extended families (in reality no more extended than yours or mine), this is taken to ludicrous extremes. Secondly, there seems to be a de facto policy that once an article is permitted, any trivia can be added to it as long as it's sourced and not blatantly promotional and the total is within 200 kB or so.
2. I don't remember ever having seen a hint of a willingness to divulge.
3. There hasn't been a suggestion of block evasion or other skulduggery, so I don't think so.

-- Hoary (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• To me there are two key questions:

1. Is there someone to mop up their mistakes, and
2. Are their edits a net positive or not (taking into account the need to mop-up, clogging up the Teahouse, etc.)

If the answer to both is "yes", there is no problem. I think that is the case.

So far for (1) there has been someone to answer. As to (2), their edits unfailingly contain references; the argument for "no" is either "nobody cares about minor British nobles but your clumsy editing sucks up other editor's time to correct" or "pages are trivia about unnotable people". The latter can be dealt with simply: AfD a couple of articles, warn the user, when they predictably fail to heed the warnings go to ANI or such. The former sounds dubious to me (the very existence of that editor is evidence that some people care deeply about the British nobility), plus there would be an argument to make that even if nobody cared it is a legitimate part of a human-knowledge-encyclopedia.

Their editing while logged out is clearly not deceptive (hence permitted) and would not in my view support a WP:COMPETENCE block/ban. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, Tigraan, yes, mostly; but the most recent desperate plea for assistance was in order to add for "further reading" a book described as published recently but that no library participating in Worldcat has bothered to acquire and that isn't available from either the US or the UK Amazon. And it's further to an article already so exhaustive that it tells the reader for example "He is referenced in a telegram sent by his relative Lieutenant R. Noel Middleton to Middleton's father-in-law, Francis Martineau Lupton upon the death of Francis's eldest son, Major Francis Ashford Lupton on the Western Front in 1917." (What reference -- "PLEASE INFORM NORMAN", perhaps?) This may look like deep care to you, but it looks like extraordinary obsession to me. However, perhaps I misunderstand. -- Hoary (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

"Extraordinary obsession" is IMO a fair description, but as long as they follow the policies the result is "deep care".

I agree the recent book addition is meh, and could legitimately be reverted, just as any other edit by any other editor. If 90% (or 50%, or..) of their edits end up reverted, or if after a revert they start edit-warring, that would be a problem and it would tip the scale towards "net negative", but we are not there yet.

You could make a case to trim some pages down based on WP:IINFO and stuff (I do no really think that "referenced and below 200kb" is the final criterion), but do we really want to? I mean, if someone looks up the page of a minor English viscount and scrolls past the lede, there is a much higher than average chance that they do want to learn what you and I would consider useless trivia. (That applies to pretty much any Wikipedia article - for example I could see many people looking up for a definition of melting point but less than 0.1% of them understanding let alone caring about the gory details of Lindenmann's criterion.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Tigraan, AlanM1, as I skimread the article Lupton family (circa 110 kB), it looks like the description of a TV "saga" that I wouldn't want to use up my time watching. My lack of interest would very likely make it more difficult for me to distinguish between what is and isn't encyclopedic within it. While I think I can recognize what's utterly trivial when I see it, I'll happily leave that job to somebody who's both (a) interested in this kind of stuff (if done well) and (b) level-headed. (I must concede that Wikipedia editors seem to have an extraordinary respect for pedigree; cf the kilobytes devoted to "Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon", which was hardly buffeted by AfD.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Master Carver and Patrick MacDowell

Hi Hoary, I added Patrick MacDowell to page... He was great great grandfather and this information will be of great interest as his work is at Belfast City Hall, St Paul's Cath and Houses of Parliament.. Gives link between past and present.. Master Carver.. I have enormous experience and a Masters Degree Verdant333 (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That's an amazing reply! My gr gr grandaddy could be left out cus he only made 4 prime ministers in marble and JMW Turner looking silly.. I never met him.. 105 years deaded before I squeezed out of my mamma body. I'm trying to give people the gist of the life of a real artist whos made commissions in different places.... Did the most important work of Scottish modern art.. It made the old fella the Scots Makar when they saw my work..then he was writing the poem which opened a new parliament... He remembered the poor student who made his graven image😉 Verdant333 (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't follow, Verdant333. I believe that Jacob Epstein and (incest etc aside) Eric Gill have high reputations for their work; yet neither article calls the man a "master" anything. Which amazing reply? And are you saying that you are R. D. Innes? -- Hoary (talk) 12:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Master is more so denoting a ' Woodcarver', an experienced guy in a workshop, or someone with a large body of work. Can you tell me what else needs to be amended in this article please. I'm just complimenting you on your replies! Verdant333 (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Verdant333, the draft says "Innes was trained in drawing and clay modelling by African-American artist Boyce Drake." There's what looks like a reference; but it isn't a reference because what's linked to doesn't mention Innes. It's followed by "Innes worked for Drake in his Gloucester art shop and in some of his art classes and private clients as Artists Life model", which I suppose means "Innes worked for Drake in his Gloucester art shop and as a life model both in some of Drake's art classes and for private clients", but I'm not sure (I find your writing hard to understand). Whatever it means, no source is provided for it. Possibly it's backed up by one of the references listed at the end, but these are described only vaguely. What I've quoted here isn't atypical of the draft. So I don't know what's meant in much of the draft, and I can't look it up. Moreover what you write in comments above suggests that you're writing about yourself. If you are, then I don't know why you don't wait until somebody who's unconnected with you writes a draft about you. Perhaps some other reviewer will view the draft more favourably than I can. -- Hoary (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary, Drake got publicity after his death in Gloucester. He was a very well known elderly black chap. his funeral at Gloucester Cathedral was well attended. The article attempts to give him recognition. Innes worked for him as stipulated. Tell us what is acceptible? Do we delete Drake cus there is no reference. However there is one photo of Drake and Innes working at Glos cathedral together. Same with Isabella, Innes and her worked together before she became famous. Do we delete that.. People will remember Izzie and Inny together. Verdant333 (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Everything has to be verifiable: see Wikipedia:Verifiability. As illustrations, the two biographical articles I've launched most recently are John Harding (photographer) and Nudrat Afza. (Well, I hope that everything in each is backed up by a reliable, independent, published source; feel free to point out anything I may have overlooked.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Ingrid Bergman

I have started from June 14 forward, looking for good info to add back into the article. I am not very WP-tech savvy, at retrieving from old versions, so there may be a number of things I neglect to properly correct. Thanks for your help with the Amazon problem, shoutyness and gushing! I should have recognized the gushiness myself, and edited that too, before re-adding. Thanks once again for working your Admin magic, and restoring to the earlier version. Best, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your good work, Tribe of Tiger, and for thanking me; but, errrm . . . I did nothing that any user couldn't have done. (I used none of my administrative superpowers.) Credit should go to Lightcaller, for posting this alert, which is what drew my attention to an article I'd never previously looked at. -- Hoary (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah ha, here speaks an honest editor! I am fairly conservative about performing one revert, and the thought of reverting hundreds and hundreds of edits in one go, seemed to require SuperAdmin Powers! (I did say that I was not WP-tech savvy.) I, too, followed Lightcaller’s Teahouse post, to a “new article”. So, we can have a chuckle about my misapprehension of your Great Power! I will post a note of thanks to Lightcaller, for “calling light“ to shine on this situation. Nonetheless, having a senior editor approve and perform the mass revert was quite encouraging to less experienced/confident editors. Attempting to untangle the article would have been a very difficult task. I feel quite badly for Annenaim81, who worked in misguided, but good faith. So, I am searching through their past edits. They added a source for a bio of Bergman, which is available to read online, this will be helpful. Will post a kind word to them, also. Thanks for the conversation, in these lonely COVID-19 times. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC). P.S. Just saw the warnings that were posted on Annenaim81’s talk. Feeling a bit less charitable. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Notability

Hello Hoary, Excuse bias of R. D. Innes who is often scathing and calvinistic about the art works he produces. The Wood is maybe in time seen to be the most notable work of Scottish Modern Art. It made Morgan... A respected city poet somebody at the end of his life... A Glasgow Laureate and shortly after the Scots Makar.. In a short time who wrote the most important modern poem in Britain. A poem which opened a new Parliament!.. Brilliant idea and very Scottish. The Innes article gives people in Scotland key information and is highly notable. Verdant333 (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Your draft is about Innes, not about Morgan. But imaginably a major factor in the significance of Innes is related to Morgan, rather as a major factor in the significance of Alfred Appel (unfortunately a feeble article) is related to Nabokov. If this is so, then the draft about Innes has to use independent, reliable, published sources to say so. -- Hoary (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Changes.. Advice please

Hoary, I have deleted downwards.. Tidied article. Detailed advice, please give to get it published. There are two newspaper articles and Morgan's book. Its on Wikita, not sure what relationship it has with Wikipedia. It wasn't me who put it on Wikita, I am pleased. Verdant333 (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I have inserted apostrophes where convention dictates and have made other changes. I don't know how the book by Morgan and the Kindle book cowritten by Innes are references. Much of the material in Draft:R. D. Innes remains unsourced. Please compare the short bio article that I created most recently, Nudrat Afza: there may be flaws in it (if you see any, do please point them out), but more or less everything within it is attributed to a particular source. ¶ I don't know what you're saying about "Wikita" -- perhaps that somebody has pirated Morgan's book and uploaded it to a website of that name? (If so, don't use it: Wikipedia does not link to web pages that violate copyright.) The name "Wikita" doesn't appear within this exhaustive list, so I infer that it has nothing to do with Wikipedia/Wikimedia. (I also searched for the name but found nothing.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Chila Joseph draft

Hello thanks for your comments. Yes I run VIMS. And I know Chila, having introduced him to NPG staff. I don’t see that as a problem is it? Thanks for your comments. I'll do more work to add some summaries. And there's another source discussing his work that Ive not cited. Thanks again davidz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dz3 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Ive done more work on the draft, added more refs and expanded. For now that's all I can do. I'd like to add another similar bio of the other photographer in the original show but wait to see what you make this. thanks again david — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dz3 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Dz3. I can't believe that you have got or might get any financial or professional benefit from an increased public awareness of Chila's work, so I'm sure that you don't have a conflict of interest as this notion would normally be understood. However, Wikipedia takes it really seriously and defines it more broadly, or tries to. (In reality, as you'll soon see if you haven't already, Wikipedia has tens of thousands of more or less adulatory articles about obscure artists: articles that are clearly written by the persons themselves, by their friends or family, or for money. Ugh. And no, I'm not suggesting that this now-article [congratulations!] is adulatory: it is not. And it is all the better for this.) While you've kept to the spirit of "WP:COI", you haven't kept to the letter. Please do so, by no longer editing the article. When I say this I am not asking you to go away: quite the contrary. Please stick around and make suggestions on the talk page. Somebody, very likely me, will see them and implement them. (Or, sorry, they'll refuse to do so. But if what you've done so far predicts the future, you'll get few objections.) Perhaps preface a suggestion with "Hello editors ({{U|Hoary}}, perhaps?)" or similar: this will trigger a special alert for me, just as my "{{U|Dz3}}" in this comment will have triggered an alert for you. There are, however, some other editors of photography articles who might be tempted to help; and very likely there are editors with a special interest in Cameroon who might do the same.

I'd like to see an article by Finlak, but I hope that it can be constructed in a different way, so that it will never have a "Conflict of interest" template on it. Let me think.

In the meantime, could more be added to the article on Chila? Currently we have Clarke commenting, but one of his premisses is "Roland Barthes’ acute insight" that "photography cannot signify (aim at generality) except by assuming a mask." I've read and reread this patch of Clarke's paper but don't claim to understand it. This may be my fault: I bought a copy of Camera Lucida decades ago, but each (rare) attempt to read the thing has my eyes glaze over. If Clarke (or somebody) says something that elucidates rather than obscures, please suggest it on Talk:Joseph Chila and somebody (me?) will consider adding it.

Last, small point: When you write a comment on a talk page (such as this one), please end it with four consecutive tildes (four "~"). This will add your username and a timestamp to the comment. -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear Hoary, many thanks for your comments. Much appreciated. On Chila there aren't really sources to warrant further expansion though there are things in the pipeline for next year. The main expansion I envisage will have to wait until I can see him so I can get releases for some sample images. And yes indeed we need to work out a process to deal with the Finlak draft. Dz3 (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Request for your opinion on a Wikipedia rule: WP:RS/SPS

As you have been instrumental at the beginning of this article on the "Portrait of a Noble young Lady", I would like to ask your opinion on the applicable rule of Wikipedia, WP:RS/SPS, regarding blogs by experts.
My arguments on its applicability have been totally ignored/disregarded by the other contributors, whereas I detailed them in this thread. None of the contributors who denied and reverted this source in the article did even take the time to answer my detailed explanations, and evidences provided (i.e., that the disputed case abides by this rule).
Instead of properly answering my arguments in this very thread, they diverted and hence biased the discussion in trying to oppose a "consensus". "Consensus" which not only was not met in this article, but also is not cited by the said rule as a necessary condition for the eligibility/reliability of the source.
Note that this discussion was also brought by reasons which have nothing to do with the article, as summarised in this thread by another contributor.
In my opinion, if the rule, as I recall it in my thread, does not mention "consensus" of the community on the blog or his author, it is enough to see it as a reliable source, if all criteria cited by the rule, and only them, are met.
What is your opinion?
Thank you in advance,--Emigré55 (talk) 10:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Issei Suda

I strongly agree with your view that Issei Suda was an outstanding photographer. The problem with his article is that it doesn't (can't?) contain any of his works because none exist in Commons. I don't see how it will ever get beyond start class while the only image is to the spines of some of his photobooks. And Suda is dead, which makes matters easier in principle when writing good articles. Aside from the prima donna tendencies, Ed Gold is also an outstanding photographer (IMO, at least) AND we have available photos properly licensed under {{CC BY-SA 4.0}}. So let's try to move forward to improve the article, otherwise I just think we are all WP:NOTHERE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The best articles on photographers do indeed show their photographs; but articles on photographers that don't show any can and occasionally do advance beyond start class (in the opinion of people who haven't created them, too). During the last week I learned of the deaths of two photographers, Chris Killip and Hiroh Kikai. As their histories will show, I've spent some time on each. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I've improved both (not that I'd claim that either is particularly good). So I'd say I'm "HERE". Since July, I've been tinkering with the draft of an article on one photographer. Time permitting (it doesn't and probably won't), I'd also work to improve the articles on Cole, Goldblatt, Killip, Kikai, Mark, Nagano, Naitō, Robertson, Suda, Sutkus, Takanashi, Webb, Yasui, and others. And I can think of several who don't have articles but deserve them. -- Hoary (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with all that. I wasn't implying that you personally were not here, only that I've had a pile of nonsense directed towards me (not by you) since I tried to improve the Ed Gold article and frankly was beginning to wonder why those editors who spouted the nonsense didn't have something better to do. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Samuel Finlak

Hello Hoary, I am preparing text for a Samuel Finlak entry similar to the Chila one. Any thoughts on how to address the CoI issues that I have? I'm happy to pass basic draft on to you as a third party to assess/ finish. Dz3 (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Well . . . how about a repeat of the last process, more or less, but you put both one kind of COI notice at the top of Draft:Samuel Finlak (as I put on, and later removed from, the Chila draft) and the other kind at the top of its talk page (as you did on the other draft's talk page). -- Hoary (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

OK if that's allowed that will be fine. Just a few more things to check Dz3 (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Hoary,

the Samuel Finlak draft is now at a similar state to the Chila one. Ive put a photo of him in wikimedia commons too. Happy for you to look at it when you have a moment Many thanks dz (Hoary, Dz3 (talk) 09:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, but you'll have to add references for the sections "Early life" and "Career". -- Hoary (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Its really one source for both - now inserted but not sure if in right place. Nor how to put in page ref correctly (Hoary, Dz3 (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Source ?

https://www.thoughtco.com/tiberius-roman-emperor-121262 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 06:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I see a "?", Gremista.32; but if you have a question then I don't know what the question is. If you have a question about editing an article, try asking it -- in a full sentence, with a verb -- in the talk page of that article. Because I see that Captain Calm has already had trouble trying to work out what you mean, and I have no appetite for such guesswork. -- Hoary (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I want to know where in the article put the source 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem is where to put the reference because I don't want to be reversed later 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

You haven't specified the article, Gremista.32. You haven't specified what it is in the article that you want backed up by the source. So I can't give any advice -- other than that you probably shouldn't be citing it for any purpose, anywhere. Why not? See the comment on the value (or not) of "Dotdash", which includes Thoughtco. -- Hoary (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius His period as a Roman emperor 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 08:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Please ask about this at Talk:Tiberius. -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I asked 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Respect

The way you spoke to me in the Teahouse is not acceptable. Please modify your netiquette. Cheers Hockeycatcat (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Um Hockeycatcat, I thanked you for pointing out the copyright violation, I noted that I'd fixed it, I pointed out that you could have done this (though perhaps it would have been better phrased as anyone could have done it, of course including you), and I pointed to an explanation of this. What am I not noticing? Anyway, yours was a good question, and you're doing a good job reverting others' stupidity; thank you. If some other "users" [interesting term!] seem gruff, it may be because they're too sleepy to phrase their responses optimally. -- Hoary (talk) 07:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hoary, I'm sorry, my mind didn't read your message properly. I thought you were a bit angry because I didn't undo it. And apologies, I didn't know you were sleepy. Cheers Hockeycatcat (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

All's fine, Hockeycatcat. Again, thank you for working to improve Wikipedia. (This isn't always so simple. As I look at this article history, for example, I'm thoroughly confused.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Ugh, now that I look at it, I realise that I should have undone some more yesterday... Hockeycatcat (talk) 05:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Annoyed reference geek...

Bound (1996 film) I am very annoyed by current ref #9. It is used a-v, Twenty-two citations... yet there is no way to truly confirm this source. Every portion wikilinks to a WP article, and not to an actual source. Even "DVD" wikilinks to the WP article on DVDs. These same 22 citations where present when the article was graded as a GA in 2009. So, WTF? for all citations??? (Not the way I really want to go...to be honest.) Who wrote the source material? Where did it come from? The source may have been the liner notes for the DVD, but surely, there is a better way to attribute. What would have been the proper way to cite? Rather annoyed, but perhaps I am wrong to be annoyed....Thanks for any possible help, and for allowing me to vent. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's assume for now that the material can indeed be found where earlier editors said/say it can. I have trouble believing that it's all in some writing that's signed by all the people named in that multiply used reference. So who wrote (said?) what? But whether any part of it is written by one or all, those people are all involved in the film. Some of what she/they/he is/are saying sounds like what an actor/director/etc could reasonably and uncontroversially be quoted as saying; however, here's just one sample:

Corky is literally inside Violet's closet, bound and gagged by Caesar.[9] This scene is echoed later in the film when Violet says "I had this image of you inside of me..."[9] This theme of being trapped is exacerbated by the claustrophobic feeling created by the fact that most of the film takes place in Violet and Casear's [sic] apartment, or the apartment next door where Corky is working.[9]

That one scene echoes another (and not merely that one scene was intended to echo another), that something created a claustrophobic feeling (and again, not just that this was the intention) and that anything exacerbated anything else (and yet again, not merely yada yada) -- these are claims that I'd expect to come from sources independent of the film. -- Hoary (talk) 08:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Tribe of Tiger, this history (from Sep '20) of another article (irrelevant to the one above, I must confess) may interest you. -- Hoary (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I do agree that the information seems entirely sensible and appropriate, and I certainly do not want to remove it! But, oh my gosh, I am so slow...I always, always, Always! tend to think of sources as being in print. So, that is my answer...not in print, but in the filmed commentary/interviews featured on the DVD! Duhh da Duhh Duhh. Which is what the source says: "Director/Writers/actors Commentary"!!! I am an arse, for being limited in my thinking, and not recognizing that we can cite verbal, as well as, print sources. Is this correct? So, that is the source of my problem, here. I haven't had time to look at the history you linked, but wanted to confess my misconception. Thanks for helping me recognize my problem. An embarrassed cat returns to their cave...Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why a sound recording is unsuitable. However, if this is all citing chit-chat within a commentary track created by a group of insiders as they watched a recording, then "Wachowskis, Joe Pantoliano, Jennifer Tilly, Gina Gershon, Susie Bright (1997). Director/Writers/actors Commentary (DVD). Gramercy Pictures." is inadequate. Rather, we should see something like "Unidentified speaker (probably Gina Gershon or Jennifer Tilly) at 22′40″, within Wachowskis, Joe Pantoliano, Jennifer Tilly, Gina Gershon, Susie Bright (1997). Director/Writers/actors Commentary (DVD). Gramercy Pictures." Though as I've said above, more often than not we shouldn't see anything like this, because the article should be citing independent sources. -- Hoary (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, this has been an informative conversation, for which I thank you. Now, I have a better understanding about the use of sound recordings. At this point, I will leave well enough alone. I don't think it will "break the wiki" to retain information that has been present in this GA article for at least 13 years. Thanks for explaining how sound sources "should" be cited, in a more perfect world. I am content...Best, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 01:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)