User talk:Hoary/Archive34

	A wise owl
	Hoary is defined as : #1 white or grey with age #2 ancient and venerable. Worthy associations...so, my wise and venerable friend, I gift you with this beautiful Snowy Owl, who may personify "Hoary". No generic smiles or "wikilove" templates. Just a photograph that I hope you will enjoy, as thanks for your friendly helpfulness. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 01:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your talkpage caveats regarding generic smiles and "wikilove" templates made me chuckle. "Wikilove" is a nice sentiment, but a dreadful name. I couldn't resist the challenge, and will watch your page "avidly". Best wishes! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 01:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you. Yes, I do like owls. In the spirit of Wikipedia, didja know that the Japanese word for bird is normally written 鳥, that a number of the Japanese words for particular species of bird can be written with 鳥 plus something (for example kamo, 鴨, meaning "duck"), but the only Japanese words (that I can think of) for particular species of bird whose characters subtract something are karasu, 烏 (you have to look closely), meaning "crow", and fukurō, 梟, meaning "owl". -- Hoary (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, I have no knowledge of this, and even with enlarging my screen, my old eyes have difficulty discerning the difference. I knew you were a very wise bird! My main association with anything Japanese, has to with the marvelous art of Shibori, which I studied, for a number of years, through week-long workshops, poring over books, and weeks/months/years of experimentation. After becoming somewhat proficient, I began to produce and sell my artwork. An (American) friend purchased one of my shibori neckties, and wore it during a business trip to Japan. He reported that his Japanese business colleagues immediately recognized the shibori technique, and were very impressed that an American artist had produced his necktie, and, I suspect, that an American man would value it, and wear it. This seemed to be an ice-breaker, as far as his business trip went. I had forgotten about this good memory. I have a rather large collection of shibori patterned fabrics, purchased from Japan. After this conversation, I think I will be opening drawers, looking in closets, and marveling over astonishingly beautiful fabrics, once again! I am so glad you liked the snowy owl, and I am grateful to you, for causing me to recall happy memories! Warmly, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 03:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hoary!

I hope you are well.

I was wondering whether you could help me with my page (Draft:The Goblin Club) and get it approved. Any help or advice would be much appreciated! :)

Best wishes,

Gobbo123

Unfortunately I can't read the FT article. A quick look at the descriptions of the other sources suggests that they're all local. I have trouble discerning notability here, I'm sorry to say. -- Hoary (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the

Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• The producer of this file is believed to be the television channel, because the song was premiered with music video (neither audio format was produced nor the record label is unspecified at the end of the video).

• See the video on YouTube

• See here for webpage of this song in its channel
• See the channel's privacy policy

I need to

A file can't have a "fair use" status. Arguably, it can have a "fair use" status for a particular purpose. You would be claiming "fair use" within the article

Kiev Day and Night; whether your claim would be justified would depend on a number of factors. The file was deleted by Explicit. If you want to argue for its restoration, you should ask Explicit (at User talk:Explicit). ¶ As you may know, "deleted" files aren't really deleted, and it should be no harder to restore the file in (say) 2022 than to restore it right now. I suggest that you concentrate on the text of the article before worrying about which "media" to attach to it. Looking at the text, I immediately see two kinds of problem. First, while much of it is easy to understand, it includes material that I don't understand at all. An example is the sentence "The second season was increased by 25% and critically collapsed the exceeding rate in total by 50% while premiering season five, resulted in cancellation on January 8, 2019". Secondly, it casually includes unreferenced evaluations: "Well-known deluxe poster", "Three notable soundtracks were produced", etc. -- Hoary (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

You're improving it. Good! But there's a lot more work to be done. For example: "The music video features Alexander with Albina and her husband Oleksandr." No: people should normally be referred to by surname. -- Hoary (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks, I haven't review the other aspects of article. Done. What should we do next? I have already requested undeletion to Explicit. The Supermind (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Magi (Jan Mostaert) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

Thank you, Johnbod! It's a fine painting and a fine article. Thank you for your good work on it, and the very best solstice-into-January season to you too. -- Hoary (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This year, many people had COVID to fear,
The holidays are getting near,
One thing that will be clear,
We will still have holiday cheer,
Happy holidays and happy new year!!
From Interstellarity (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Interstellarity! And the same to you. Yes, I have a pile of things to do, but tomorrow shan't do any of them and shall instead unglue my rear end from this or any chair for an entire day. (Back to work the day after, though.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your review and comments. Yes, most are articles about the artist in "art magazines" (I think it is better to call them that way), which include text and his works, they are spaces in those publications dedicated exclusively to him. The links that I included in that section are direct to each specific publication, where the artist is mentioned. Unfortunately many of these contents are not online, I have some PDFs about those contents but I understand that it is not appropriate to upload them as images. As for each of these media is less than four pages, I understand that you mean the length of the articles about the artist? if so, I don't see anything wrong with the coverage being 3 or 4 pages. Please let me know if I misinterpreted your comment. Thanks!Cmparma (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first question you should ask yourself about

WP:GNG in some other way. If he doesn't, then (regardless of the quality of his work) an article about him won't survive at Wikipedia. Let's suppose for a moment that he does satisfy WP:GNG (e.g. via WP:ARTIST). Well, what can you say about him? If these articles about him contain worthwhile material (and if this isn't mere recycling of the same stuff), then summarize this material and cite it. As for appearances in magazines, we normally ignore these. Worthy exceptions include what's described in the article Chris Killip as "Chris Killip Photographs 1975–1976 in the North East". London: Creative Camera, May 1977, Number 155, entire issue. because (i) it was unusually large (indeed, the entire issue of Creative Camera), and (ii) it has been written about (though the Wikipedia article doesn't currently describe this). -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Link of the draft:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zeyan_Shafiq

and as you wrote earlier that this person is only notable for kashbook, check refrences he is the founder of india's leading esport organisation as well namely stalwart esports.

Thanks and regards humsar.Hums4r (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your list of contributions shows that you have sent the identical message to a number of people. Therefore I'll reply at the Teahouse. -- Hoary (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for letting me know about submission processes,

Hello, i happen to know him, but this is not a COI, I have gone through all the articles myself. this is the only reason i want to do article on him, also i am planning to do article mainly on notable kashmiri people. i think people should know about him (He has been very notable in news in 2017 and now with his new startup 'Stalwart Esports' he's making it to news again and thats why i wanted to do it on him,my formatting might be wrong but i am learning it all) and other kashmiri's as well since everyone looks up for information on wikipedia only. i am new to wikipedia and still learning on how to make edits, i was unable to move the article to mainspace and i googled about it and it showed me that you need an old account to move it, so i asked Zeyan if he has an old account and if he can move it, since i didnt know about AfC process, i admit my mistake and apologise for it, i have submitted it through AfC. i'll make sure this doesnt get repeated, and my reason for asking multiple users about the draft was to ask them to review it if there are any mistakes in the article. and i have updated the sources for the pictures as well,kindly check. I am sorry for the earlier incorrect source. i am learning about all the rules of wiki slowly and i look forward to improve things The reason i am posting this message here as well is to let you know about my response, i dont know if you will get any notification of my response at teahouse question.

Draft:Zeyan Shafiq Hums4r (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've responded at the Teahouse. -- Hoary (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hoary hello and happy new year I am writing since I see the addition that I added to the Josph Chila talk page early in december still hasn't been added to the main page which you advised me not to edit because of CoI. If you could take a look that would be appreciated Also the parallel Samuel Finlak page still is unapproved in draft best wishes davidz Dz3 (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And a happy new year to you! Sorry, I really don't think that the proposed addition to

Draft:Samuel Finlak, it hasn't been submitted for approval: please add {{subst:submit}} to it, and be patient. (More precisely, use the source editor -- not the visual editor -- to add what you see above when you are not editing this: "subst:submit", minus quotation marks, plus doubled braces, but not the "nowiki" or "DarkRed" stuff.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Stumbled across one of your AfC declines. "Chrestomathy". What a great word! Just wanted to express my appreciation for your unintentional teaching moment. It's not often I come upon unfamiliar words (and I'm a language nerd of the first order). This one I'm going to put to good use!)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fuhghettaboutit, I'd quite forgotten -- and I still don't remember which of the many AfC declinings that might have been. But thank you for the link to that dodgy article, for its link to the very strange "Ibis Chrestomathy" (by the author of, and somehow related to, the Ibis trilogy). If you enjoy the discovery of unfamiliar words, this is the place to go. But as the trilogy is fiction and the author (previously unknown to me) is primarily a novelist, the content (complete with references to actual lexicographers and dictionaries) may be fictional too. Still, words invented for fiction (chortle, etc) can and do become accepted parts of the language, so one might employ others' inventions regardless. -- Hoary (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of non-finite clause versus nonfinite phrase, please see my edit here. Does the edit accord with a reputable publication? Yes. Do I stand by the edit? Yes, as it accords with my own lexicon. Will the edit satisfy even 50% of the people who care? Probably not. I'm not holding my breath waiting to see how long to takes before someone reverts the edit. I'll be shocked if the edit stays untouched for an entire week. No, I won't be offended if you get the jump on everyone and revert it yourself. For me, this is a bit like watching linguists who agree on using a decimal numbering system without consensus whether the number that follows 5 should be a 6 or a 9. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Non-finite clause. -- Hoary (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, I read this fascinating article about a slave reparation lawsuit and thought you might enjoy it. ta-ta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.134.121.154 (talk) 06:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hoary, Thank you for your edits on the Playing Angels page! In response to your question about whether or not the statues would be considered cherubs, they're definetely not the sterotypical chubby angel baby type of figures, more athletic and slightly older, so I'm not sure if this would make them cherubs or something else. I'm no expert on angels though, so if you feel that they are free to make that change. Thanks again --Zthistle2102 (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zthistle2102, I'm glad I could help, a little. But unfortunately angels, cherubim, seraphim and the like are among my numerous areas of ignorance. -- Hoary (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a collector of antique tools, I have had occasion to try my hand with an adze. The best advice I got was "wear shin guards." I also have a railroad spike remover (and a bucket full of railroad spikes rescued from old track that was to be removed for creation of a rail trail), a 13-tine ensilage fork, a "plug drill" used to make holes in granite as prep for splitting, and two ice saws. There is an anecdote about Henry David Thoreau: when a crew showed up at Walden Pond to cut ice, the winter he was living there, he pestered them with so many questions that they asked him if he wanted to man the bottom end of an ice saw. David notMD (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere I have a bagful of decades-old Elliott-Lucas pliers, and I have a handful of freewheel extractors (and even know where they are), but that's about it for non-hundrum tools. I just wish I were more proficient at using what tools I already have. Talk of accidents and the "railroad spike remover" reminds me of the celebrated Phineas Gage, whose fate always makes me shudder. -- Hoary (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

4. “The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

You definitely have much more experience in this but I wonder whether you can re-evaluate based on the fact that Bartnikas might meet criteria of B) and C) since he won a few photography awards (taking 1st or 2nd places) and therefore was reviewed by significant critical attention? If you check his

sections “Notable Photography Awards” and “Exhibitions” and check the sources, you can see that he is not out of the mill photographer.

Please, let me know if I miss something – I'd be glad to receive your guidance and patronage on Wikipedia guidelines and rules! Here is the link to the draft for your convenience (please, no rush!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stas_Bartnikas --Idunnox3 (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking, Idunnox3. First, I should make it clear that I'm talking about "notability" only as the term is understood in Wikipedia. This notability is only tenuously related to intrinsic worth. There are Wikipedia-notable photographers (whose article-worthiness will never be challenged) who I think may or will (or should) be forgotten. There are notable-in-my-view photographers who will never get articles. ¶ Now, these awards and exhibitions: yes, they're verifiable. Have they received critical attention? Sorry, I'm too busy/lazy to look through the references: could you perhaps give me links to the best three (or four or five, but no more) among them? -- Hoary (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hoary! Many thanks for your feedback and thoughts!

Here are the links to the photography awards and critical reviews on Bartnikas works, please, take a look and let me know what you think:

Chromatic Photo Awards – 1st place (2019): https://chromaticawards.com/winners-gallery/chromatic-awards-2019/professional/environmental/gold-award

Moscow International Photo Awards (MIFA) - Gold (2017 and 2018): https://www.moscowfotoawards.com/winners/moscow/2017/3900/ https://www.moscowfotoawards.com/winners/moscow/2018/4311/

Tokyo International Photo Award – Gold prize in Architecture/Industrial + Science/Environment categories (2018):

https://www.tokyofotoawards.jp/winners/social/2018/Geothermal-Power-Plant-1/

National Geographic Travel Photo Contest: People’s Choice Award (2019)

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/contests/article/travel-photo-contest-2019-winners#/peopleschoice-nature.jpg

(page 9)

And here is a couple of critical reviews on Bartnikas’s artwork, where he is also mentioned as a winner of the Siena International Photo Awards:

https://www.thisiscolossal.com/2018/09/icelands-colorful-topography-by-stas-bartnikas/

Here is one more: https://mymodernmet.com/abstract-aerial-photography-stas-bartnikas/

The last thing, I believe that his work has clear patterns of distinguished style, which makes him different from many other artists. Let me know what you think and thank you again for your patience and time! Idunnox3 (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I invited you to give me links to "the best three (or four or five, but no more)" examples of critical attention being paid to SB's work. You've provided two. The piece in "Colossal" is primarily a gallery of SB's work; the text is short, and based on SB's own comments. The piece in "My Modern Met" is again primarily a gallery of SB's work; the text is short, and based on SB's own comments. This simply isn't enough to constitute notability as Wikipedia understands the term. Yes, I think his work is a lot more interesting than that of a number of photographers who clearly meet the notability requirements; but this opinion of mine is of no importance. -- Hoary (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for helping me at the teahouse. talk) 15:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

• M2020D (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Genki Kawamura (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Hoary, thank you so much for your review and comments. My Draft: Genki Kawamura was a direct translation of a preexisting Japanese wiki page of the same. My understanding was that I was not supposed to change the content but translate the material as is. Should I create something anew? Kindly let me know.

M2020D (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised -- though I didn't check, I did think that it looked like a ja:WP article. This is not a compliment: with many honourable exceptions, of course, ja:WP articles tend to be horrible. (Editors there love lists, chronologies, and chronology-like text, and they pile in poorly referenced or unreferenced material.) Now that I look at it, I see that your very first version of the draft of course had markup mistakes and other problems (which didn't matter, because you weren't submitting it), but was very clear not only that it was a translation of a ja:WP article but that it was a translation of a specified version of that article. Excellent! (Though it wasn't necessary to translate all of the article.) Now the problem became one of getting the draft to meet the requirements of en:WP. There's no need to be faithful to the ja:WP original; there is a need to cite sources and to be faithful to the sources that are cited. Other points:

• A lot of the listed items look trivial even if they are/were verifiable. Are they really needed?
• No wacky Japanese-style capitalization, please. As an example, nobody will say "tee-eye-eff-eff-aye-enn-why", and therefore not "TIFFANY" but "Tiffany".
• Book titles that are in Japanese should be presented in (romanized) Japanese. Your English glosses of these titles are very welcome, but the reader shouldn't get the impression that they're actual titles. (There's a complication here, in that a lot of Japanese-only books have supplementary English-language titles. But let's not worry about this unless there are cases of it here.)
• Ditto for movie titles that are in Japanese, unless there's also an established English title for the movie.
• Book and movie titles should be italicized, not put in quotes. (I'm assuming that they're in roman letters. If you have a reason to use Japanese script anywhere, then of course this shouldn't be pseudo-italicized.)

What's unreferenced should be removed.

All of this is a pain, of course. Creating good articles (let alone "

Good Articles") is hard work, unfortunately. All the best! -- Hoary (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Greetings! I saw Zora Plešnar in the New pages feed, but have not been able to improve it much. I thought I might mention it here so that your excellent eyes would be upon it.--- Possibly (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow editor, do you remember me? Cheers, Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There's this. Why, is anything up? -- Hoary (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for reverted the page. From now on, when making edits that cannot be undone by myself, I'll ask to the teahouse before doing that. talk) 04:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

Yeah--that person emailed me. They opened with "Hey Doc", which is a great way to start, but then I got that same message about...well. I'm about to drop a few blocks on a few accounts. Ha, I'd forgotten about that template, Drmies likes this.. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I see who it is now, and it's not funny anymore--forward to ArbCom... Drmies (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I started to read it, and all that was clear was that it was gibberish, written by somebody evading a block, and neither a question (as advertised) nor a plea for help. At that point I stopped reading it. So who's the perp? -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello H, hope you and yours are well. I am writing in response to a line in your Teahouse comments on the Beretta book. FYI in the last 90 days Mahatma Gandhi wiki article had 18,500 views ... per day. He is a fairly famous person now, and was certainly a fairly globally-prominent person in 1948 (the year of his death). Looking at the Trove digitised Australian historical newspapers, there were some 80 articles published about him before his death on the 30th January, and some 440 for the rest of the year. I acknowledge the intense interest in a former British colony in another British colony (and there had been substantial people and goods travel between the two), but I suggest that in fact many areas of the world were watching the Indian Independence movement and the tactics of its perceived leader, Gandhi. That's all, keep up the good work you do making WP a better place. Brunswicknic (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brunswicknic, perhaps it looks as if I was denigrating Gandhi. This wasn't my intention. I imagine that he was, by some margin, the most famous Indian of his day. I'm not surprised by the number of his appearances in (to take your example) Australian newspapers. Readers the world over of "quality" newspapers would have read of it, as would people listening to the news on non-commercial (and possibly even commercial) radio stations. But who says his murder shook the entire world, where do they say it, and, even if it can be substantiated, why does this need to be said in an article that may or may or may not emerge from this puff-piece about a self-published novel? -- Hoary (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

we corresponded a while back about Jospeh Chila. A related/ parallel entry is still languishing in draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Samuel_Finlak If you could have a look it would be appreciated. Also there's stuff on Chila's talk page for an update (granted Ive said I won't do it myself) many thanks david Dz3 (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Samuel Finlak: done; Joseph Chila: is there some suggested addition other than the Vogue photo? -- Hoary (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks H. I take your point about the photo in Vogue: big deal for him, less so for the world! best wishes davidz Dz3 (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hoary. I wonder if you might give your notability opinion on the above photographer? I have half a mind to send it to AfD, but want a second opinion first. Thanks. --- Possibly (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't work up any enthusiasm for or against deletion. I, in Tokyo, had never heard of the "Tokyo Foto Awards" until I first read of them in somewhat desperate en:WP articles. Once I had heard of them, I looked at their website and nothing there looked at all familiar. It seems to be merely a CV-stuffing scheme, very similar to the "Moscow Foto Awards" (and run by the same company). On the other hand winning the contest hosted by the Natural History Museum (London) seems quite something. My problem is that I know very little about nature photography. One thing I do happen to know is that one of its most renowned exponents is Frans Lanting, and I note that the en:WP article about him is unimpressive. (The article Eric Hosking is far more interesting, but the degree of referencing is terrible.) Is the problem perhaps that people hardly write about such photography? The books come out, and they're given as presents; but I don't recall seeing criticism about any (unless perhaps it's monochrome). Vijayan's photographs are highly proficient and must have taken him considerable time and effort; also, unlike a lot of photographers of "nature" (e.g. Lanting at times), he doesn't go in for color filters and such gimmickry. It does seem strange that people like this don't get articles whereas people who walk up and down runways and are photographed wearing clothes do get them. But then, WP-style "notability" is only tenuously related to actual notability. -- Hoary (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your responses on Teahouse haven't been very helpful. You should probably take a look at what they're asking and give them the appropriate answer. For example, there's a reference desk for questions not related to Wikipedia specifically and you told someone who asked a question that would've been great there to look it up in their search engine.

Well hello,

Blaze The Wolf. One response aside, I don't know which responses you're referring to. As for the response that you suggested should be ignored, I was/am well aware of the reference desks (plural), and (rightly or wrongly) was sure that this would be a poor question to ask at the "miscellaneous" refdesk but an excellent one for duckduckgoing, what with an abundance of helpful videos at Youtube and elsewhere. That said, if I may quote another editor, there are sure to be times when "my replies aren't exactly the best"; you may wish to initiate a discussion about them (either in general, or particularly egregious examples) at the talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

ALright. Just wanted to make you aware. If I came off as rude, I didn't mean it. Just trying to give some advice. Also, I admit that I probably shouldn't have said "Ignore Hoary's response" as your response was also helpful.

talk) 22:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, is there some way to disable the thing on your talk page that says "People need Wikipedia"? It's kinda an eyesore to look at

talk) 22:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

This is so educative and really leaves room for so much more for me to learn. I guess my idea of seeking to promote greater youth involvement in national leadership contributes to shaping my style of writing on these related subjects. It is my desire to use this platform to promote a better narrative for the need to have more younger leaders in national leadership in Nigeria. Thank you. Bibihans (talk)Bibihans — Preceding undated comment added 12:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I am new to wikipedia, could you please review my referencing and article citation. Since I had to give a proof I posted the pictures of the articles in Wikimedia commons. ThanksAditya Roychowdhury - Periodic Table (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sushil_Chandra_Roy_Chowdhury Aditya Roychowdhury - Periodic Table (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me to give the COI also. This method in the article is not working.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Your username (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. ((Optional) Insert relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts or diffs showing COI contributions.)

Aditya Roychowdhury - Periodic Table (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Connected contributor|User1=Your username |U1-declared=yes| U1-otherlinks=(Optional) Insert relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts or diffs showing COI contributions. Aditya Roychowdhury - Periodic Table (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article now shows the COI template. I haven't bothered to check who put it there or when it was put there, but it wasn't my doing. -- Hoary (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have edited the article and removed the deletion template. So is it suitable for re-submission and acceptance? Aditya Roychowdhury - Periodic Table (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Roychowdhury, it now seems to say very little. Please see the suggestions that I posted a couple of minutes ago to the top of the draft. -- Hoary (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you very much for the comments to improve my first article in English. I really didn't know that I should put the titles of the references in the original language. I will change the titles to their original language. On the other hand, I understand the comment about the references. So I will make the improvements. Thank you.--DianaMTancredi (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DianaMTancredi, this is an example of the kind of thing that you have to do. (The fields -- "url-status", "trans-title", etc -- can be in any order.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies about my answer. When I said "rich and famous" I was really meaning that the artist is notable. I was just attempting to use the user's own words to answer the question and clearly failed. I know not all music artists were literally rich and/or famous.

No worries, Blaze! Incidentally:

• I'm puzzled/amused by the recent insistence (there, not yours but the questioner's) on "act" (or "artist"). Perhaps it's supposed to sound more impressive than "musician" (or "singer", "guitarist", or whatever).
• This suggests that actual riches and fame go together with grotesquely bad taste.

Happy editing! -- Hoary (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your time spent for me

T.Yusherova (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you, Tatiana. I wish you the best with your draft -- though I have to say that I'm less interested in Ukrainian models than in Ukrainian photographers, who are underrepresented in English-language Wikipedia. Unfortunately I can't read material in Ukrainian or Russian, so don't know if there is much good material about (for example) the pair who made this book; but if there is, I'd like to read the article. -- Hoary (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good choice !!! I will try to help you))) added at 08:55, 4 June 2021 by T.Yusherova

Looking forward to it, Tatiana -- but again, make sure that there's a substantial amount of material (in any language) about one or both of these men in reliable, independent, published sources before you start to write a draft about either or both of them. And I've just noticed the existence of the article Kharkiv School of Photography; this is already a surprisingly ambitious article but one that I'm sure can be improved here and there. -- Hoary (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a draft About Sergey Kochetov, but it was deleted. Sorry you didn't see the article. There is very little material about Sergei Kochetov. Sergey also supported separatists in my country. There is a little more about Victor, but he died.

"you removed two earlier AFC-related notices. Do not remove such notices" - it was error

Tatiana, Draft:Sergey Kochetov wasn't deleted. It wasn't even rejected. It was declined, that's all. The draft needs a lot more care.

• The draft starts by calling him "Sergsy", which of course is just a typo for "Sergey"; but after that it can't decide whether he's Sergey or Serhiy. Of course these are the Russian-language and the Ukrainian-language versions respectively of what is commonly regarded as the same name, so using them both isn't a mistake, but it is odd. (Of course, quotations must be faithful to the originals.)
• There are two references. They're presented as if they were in English, but actually one is in Russian and one is in Ukrainian. It should be clear that they are not in English. (English translations of the titles may be added to the Russian/Ukrainian titles, but may not replace them.)
• The long lists of exhibitions are completely unreferenced.

Incidentally, I hadn't known that he'd been arrested, let alone convicted, for helping the Luhansk regime. That's a big surprise. I'd expect that this would make him very unpopular among the majority of the population of Kyiv. So what's also a big surprise is reading that while doing prison time for this, he was (you say) given a solo exhibition in Kyiv. -- Hoary (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hoary, I've updated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sybarite_Jewellery remaining only facts and added awards and exhibitions sections - could you please re-check it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ostashevskiy (talk • contribs) 10:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ostashevskiy, I'll defer to some other reviewer. -- Hoary (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary thanks ;) Ostashevskiy (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just up your street, isn't it, Hoary? You like luxury jewelry, I know.

speedy deleted it as such. Tipoff: words such as "innovative", "thrilled", "exclusive", "rarified magic", "iconic", "landmark" (twice in one sentence), "unmissable", "exquisite", "widely known", or "lavish" have no place in encyclopedic writing. Nor does general upbeat marketingspeak such as "fans of the brand spanning the worlds of acting, music and fashion". Bishonen | tålk 11:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC).[reply

]

Jewelry, Bishonen? I'll settle for nothing less than the legendarily iconic, unless perhaps it's the iconically legendary. -- Hoary (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pity it's not your favorite, a men's luxury iconic watch brand that makes the wearer feel like he's a deep sea diver/astronaut. Bishonen | tålk 13:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, unsure whether I should go for iridium or osmium for my luxury artisanal timepiece, I eventually decided that either would weigh too damn much, so I settled for the very finest coprolite. Wearing it, I know that I am a netscape navigator. -- Hoary (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that draft should be preserved somewhere as an example of promotional-advertising-marketing editing on steroids. I own a luxury timepiece, by the way. It is a

Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra that also allows me to make phone calls, send emails, surf the web and edit Wikipedia. Plus, it has five, count em, five cameras! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Cullen328, I'm now onto my second luxury artisanal executive communication module. It offers to help me waste my time in a variety of ways that its maker hopes will appeal to me, and it reliably tells the time too; but unlike a wrist-based luxury artisanal timepiece, it doesn't say to the world "I have transcended petty worldly affairs such as paying my taxes." -- Hoary (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am the type of self-employed person who records and reports every penny of my income to the authorities. I actually photograph stacks of $100.00 bills with my smartphone, right before depositing them into my business bank account. Then, I email the photo to my business email account. IRS, I'm clean! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen, if you are that impressed by this draft (again, note it's post-revision), you probably haven't seen Draft:Butler Leather Goods Factory, which I just noticed being rejected on Theroadislong's page. (Oh, look, it just got deleted, what a shame.) It has a whole separate very fine crop of words and expressions, which would have done well in our jewelry article. In no particular order: "unwavering", "scrupulous", "upscale", "passion", "fervour", "precise", "utmost care and attention", "craftsmanship", "dexterity", "beautiful", "expertise" (indeed "strength of his expertise due to his skills"), "emotional intelligence", "imbibed" (?), "raced along", "paved the way", "international standards of quality" (and that's just the machinery), "honest" (that's the material: leather is "one of the most honest materials known to the man", also possessing "natural beauty" and being a "living breathing material") "know-how", "vision", "lifestyle", "honed skills", "creative", "enhanced", "customer centric", "sustainable". Hello there, Theroadislong! What a life! I can't fathom why you wouldn't help the UPE on your own unpaid time. It's interesting the way they are comfortable admitting that they gamed the autoconfirmed requirements in order to be able to create articles directly in mainspace.[1] What a prize. Indeed, I think I'll just block them for disruption. Bishonen | tålk 09:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

What a hoot! Thanks for cheering a grey morning in Cornwall amidst G7 shenanigans. Theroadislong (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Sunshine!
		Hello Hoary! WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

Happy first day of summer, Hoary!! Interstellarity (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I hope I can make a request having an entry for Vance Larena. he belongs to the same management with Kelvin Miranda and Jane De Leon. Thanks! Beautyscars (talk) 09:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tea, but please see 331dot's comment about notability. -- Hoary (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Editing53 (talk · contribs)
  • talk | history | links | watch | logs
    )

Editing53 (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sameer Kulavoor that two other editors and I have requested there. -- Hoary (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Greetings Hoary! I am sorry about this. I didn't know that this wasn't allowed nor had I ever heard the term "meat-puppet" or what it means. Anyways, thanks for alerting me. Thanks and best wishes.

Peter Ormond 💬 03:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ormond, it's very simple. You are blocked at Commons. As I understand it, there are two problems: violating copyright, and block evasion by use of a sockpuppet. The block is indefinite. This means that you should either (A) go away, or (B) appeal for an end to the block. There is no third course. Asking other people -- whether here, on some other website, or face to face -- to do your bidding at Commons is further block evasion. I suggest that you make no image-related edits (e.g. swapping one image for another) on Wikipedia (the English one or any other) until you have succeeded in having the Commons block lifted, and that you don't attempt to have the Commons block lifted for at least another three months. -- Hoary (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I found the image on Apple music and copyright belong to the artist. Menu maharaj (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Menu maharaj, please say this at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Music_album_cover. -- Hoary (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hoary:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by

Sir my one Wikipedia page has been converted into draft..,what to do..? Plz help me in its republishment. Mr bond. .isaahmad (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify which draft this is. -- Hoary (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst this reply is correct I do not think it’s a good idea to make NEWBIES feel as though it’s that much of a big deal. Celestina007 (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Um, as though what is that big a deal? -- Hoary (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it considered rude to publicly ask about wiki-drama that you come across on other people's talk pages during your normal course of editing wikipedia? Like say I go to your talk page to leave you a message because we're editing the same article, but I come across a rather-markedly mysterious or puzzling incident that you are involved in. I feel like if I publicly ask you about it, it draws more attention to it and makes it seem like I presume a right to know about it, even though it's none of my business! Your thoughts? LaceyUF (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you publicly ask me about something, your doing so may draw more attention to it. (Probably not much more, as I am an obscure and uninteresting contributor to Wikipedia, whose talk page probably interests very few people.) If you emailed me to ask me, I'd probably ignore the message. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I figured. Thanks for your honest feedback! LaceyUF (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your support and trust. Please contact me if I can be helpful. BusterD (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So is this ready to pass notability? Please see

This is a neutral notice sent to all non-bot/non-blocked registered users who edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics in the past year that there is a new request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics § RfC: Where should so-called voiceless approximants be covered?. Nardog (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your comments and help!

Vedlagt (talk) 06:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , I read your review . I made the page so that more things about the topic which do not need to be there thats. on the main article there should be things which greatly affected the state and his successors and his very notable things but there should be also a place where one can find more info about the topic that's why i made it , please help me out like what things i should add in it and in what ways i should edit it so that it gets accepted next time :) Gaurav 3894 (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mahip Narayan Singh, then what you have to do there is add significant (non-trivial) material, of course based on reliable, published references, to a point where it's obvious that the draft already says a lot more than could be said within the article Narayan dynasty. I cannot help you with this task, because I lack reference material about this subject. -- Hoary (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

thanks Gaurav 3894 (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir, With all due respect, I created this article after doing my research. This man is noteworthy you will know once you search for him on Google. He has literally brought a revolution in Vietnam. His contributions are important for the history of this country. I fail to understand sir. Please get back to me because i really need to know your point of view. --Discologist (talk) 08:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the comment that I added to Draft:ĐÀO Minh Quân is unclear (or mistaken)? -- Hoary (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your considered reply to MikeVdP. I have made some effort to elaborate on the matter in two separate comments left on their talk page. I pinged you in one of them. This note is in case the other will interest you as well. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heyyyy I'm not sure if you remember my little crusade against Japanese photographer stub-orphans, but I've come across Shinichiro Kobayashi and Tadayuki Kawahito. Before I drop PRODs on them, can you have a look and let me know if you think they're worth rescuing? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2021

No,

WP:ARTIST or whatever? Offhand, I don't know. You'll see that ja:WP has an "article" on Kobayashi. It's stereotypically bad (a series of lists), but it does correctly say that he was born in 1956. Some English-reading IP was sufficiently interested in Kobayashi to give him a fictional birthdate. Let's face it: the entire oeuvre of a pretty remarkable Japanese photographer is of much less interest to most Wikipedia editors (and probably to most Wikipedia vandals too) than is, say, a frock. I'm an exception ... but I'm so lazy these days.... Hoary (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, PMC? Since you didn't (as far as I know) move to zap either of these pathetic little stubs, I decided that it was irresponsible to permit one of them to perpetuate a blatant untruth. And therefore this edit. Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, really sorry, I cleared the original notification with every intention to reply and then forgot all about it :| (I have what is clinically referred to as a goldfish memory). Your edit looks good, thank you for always being willing to look at these for me. I haven't done my usual checks for Kawahito yet, but I will shortly and then go from there. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It took less time to convert Kobayashi's "article" from semi-fraudulent substub to feeble but accurate stub than it did to attempt but fail to link between the feeble English thing and the feeble Japanese thing. Grrr! -- Hoary (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, PMC, that's now fixed. As you'll recall, the "article" on Kobayashi snoozed for an entire decade as a single sentence; whereupon some moron IP decided to add a little fiction to it. I thought I should look into the single (sourced!) sentence. I should have guessed: it had been plagiarized. I've now fixed that too. -- Hoary (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hoary, finally got a chance to look at Tadayuki Kawahito. Tried his name English and Japanese-style, and the Japanese characters as well, and came up with nothing substantive. I'm going to stick a PROD on it, but obviously I'd be quite happy to see you remove it if you find anything about him that I didn't find. (As for the plagiarism - nothing surprises me in that vein anymore.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well PMC, he occupies page 97 of that 328 Outstanding Japanese Photographers book. He worked in advertising, etc, but also put out a five-issue photozine. I've only seen a few JPEGs of the latter, but it seems vaguely countercultural, in the sexist fashion of the time (no opportunity for female seminudity missed). And then he worked on photos of India or Buddhism or something. The fact that he's in that book means that the photo museum has prints by him. But, whether conveniently or unfairly, very few people will be interested. -- Hoary (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the general problem is of course that one source is rarely sufficient to keep an article around, no matter the topic. If I'd found even a lick of any other coverage anywhere I wouldn't have put the PROD template. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Hope you don't mind my reformatting, PMC.] It's certainly a general problem. However, there's more to be found. Until recently, Japan had a rich culture of camera magazines. I say "camera" deliberately: the primary concern was on covering photographic equipment (and getting plenty of ad revenue from their manufacturers) but there was also lots of photography, commentary on photography, etc. Two libraries in Tokyo have wonderful stocks of these magazines (which, thanks to all the advertising, are terribly bulky), and one of these has built its own detailed index -- not available via the net; only available on one terminal in the library -- to at least three of these magazines. I'd be surprised if there weren't material in those magazines on Kawahito, let alone Kobayashi. (Kobayashi is also sure to appear in the back issues of the major national newspapers. These can be searched and read in any large library; my favorite is the huge metropolitan library in Arisugawa park.) But now we get on to another general problem. Very few people are interested. The obsession a few years ago with a tiny number of Japanese photographers has at last given way to a wider interest; and Japanese photography is far better represented in photobooks and exhibitions in the US, etc, than are Russian, Lithuanian, Korean and other photography; but it still doesn't come off all that well. Thus it is that I've just noticed that Toyoko Tokiwa has died: nobody else in en:WP noticed; or if they noticed, they didn't care. -- Hoary (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One thing's for sure about Tokiwa: when I learn of one simple fact about her (here, that she died on such-and-such a day), it opens up further contradictions. Revised ... until another contradiction comes to light. -- Hoary (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've got company,

Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography, and he's been in other exhibitions there too. If I'd noticed the prod notice I'd probably have left it. The rationale may be wrong, but there's no deletion rationale I know of for "I'm sure that nobody can or will be bothered to improve this." -- Hoary (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm happy to restore it if you're satisfied that he's notable; you're right that it's likely to remain a stub, but so are many other articles, so that shouldn't count against it. The Tokyo Museum exhibition sounds to me like it would roll him past NARTIST no problem. (I realize you're also a mop-wielder and can undelete too but in case you feel you shouldn't for some reason I'm happy to do it.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Athena? -- Hoary (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Lovely old things in a state of elegant decay are my kryptonite, and I do feel a certain affection for Athena. I'm coming off a night shift and don't feel up to it right this second but I should have time over my current block off to have a look :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it! -- Hoary (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it wound up mainspaced before I got a chance to go over it. I didn't find too much more source-wise on a quick search (but I don't speak German so I'm not surprised). Cool article though, I'll keep it on the watchlist and might get back to it in the future. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a pleasant change after all the my-client promotion, the my-late-father promotion, and of course the self-promotion that infests Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Visual arts. But it's very feebly sourced; indeed, I'm not certain that it's WP-"notable". (By contrast, I've refbombed my own latest creation inexcusably, but working on it has fried my eyeballs so I hesitate to revisit it and clear it up.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Daniele PS (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Alex Van Gelder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you very much for corrections.
About the need to add more sources, I have found about 15 more sources but unfortunatly many of them are from online but not print press:

• Generalist: New York Times, The Newyorker, TimeOut (US), The Independant (UK), Les Echos (FR)…
• Art: Journal des arts, L'Œil (FR), Aesthetica magazine (US), FAD Magazine, Artrabbit, Image Object Text (UK)…
• Photo: LensCulture (UK), l'Œil de la photographie (FR)…
  

I have also found a long and very interesting text about Alex Van Gelder's work with Louise Bourgeois:

Aagje Swinnen (2018) Mumbling Beauty: Louise Bourgeois—portraits of the artist as a much older woman, Feminist Media Studies, 18:1, 122-137, DOI:10.1080/14680777.2018.1409995 [2]

In fact, I don't know what is the better way to use and dispatch those new sources along the article… Perhaps, the good way would be to delete some previous not essential sources and replace them by new ones more relevant?…
I would really appreciate your advice to enrich the article properly in order to make it publishable.
Thank you very much for answer.
Daniele PS (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

doi:10.1080/14680777.2018.1409995 (Feminist Media Studies). The first does nothing to show notability; it's merely evidence that an exhibition took place. The second does help to indicate notability: it's an unfavorable review, but a writer for what in 2014 was still a "serious" British newspaper clearly thought that it merited a review, and she makes some comments that, greatly summarized, could be beneficially worked into the article. In the third, the author writes that she "[approached] the photo book as a collaborative practice that opens up conventional ideas of authorship as well as artistic autonomy", which sounds promising; but the paper quickly turns into a series of reverent citations of the more or less obscure writings of other academics -- I find this kind of thing (which is very common) very soporific, but you might find the occasional aperçu within Swinnen's example. So, what to do? What you shouldn't do is merely "add sources", adding a second or even third reference to an assertion that already comes with a reference to an adequate source. Rather, what more can you say about Van Gelder's work (or Van Gelder himself), and what are the best references for doing so? Spend a number of hours working on this, then put the draft aside for a week, then return to it and revise it, and only then submit it for the third time. -- Hoary (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Hoary!
Thank you for your advice.
Well, I will spend time, next week, to read again all sources that I have collected and try to appreciate which ones are the best ones to prove "notability" of the artist. Then, I will delete those in the draft which are less adequate and add the new ones.
Daniele PS (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hoary,Thanks for your edit. Im new to Wikipedia and the Article about the photographer Hanna Putz is my first. Regarding the photo copyright you mentioned, this is a mistake on my side; as Ive got the permission from Mr.Richter to use this image I thought this would be sufficient to use it.However after your comment, implying Mr. Richter write the article (?) I checked and the credit would still read by D. Richter but the Copyrights, he informed me actually lay with VG Bild-Kunst. How can I now delete the old photo with the wrong copyright and/or upload it again with the right copyright?I can't find a way to do this? Iv I upload it again it tells me its a replica of the image Ive used and I can't change the copyright/Credit.Your help would be much appreciated!Thanks, Anno added at 10:44, 22 August 2021 by AnnoYMWD

Thank you for the explanation, AnnoYMWD. Go to commons:File:I hate you, 2016 by Daniel Richter.jpg and look for "Tools", and under this, click on "Nominate for deletion". I'm pretty sure that there's an option that means something like "Yes, I uploaded this, but I now realize that doing so was a mistake." If there isn't such an option, then perhaps you have to write a reason. If so, then write something like "I was new here and made a mistake. This was not my own work. The copyright holder is VG Bild-Kunst. Apologies for the confusion." If you think that you can later get explicit permission for the picture to be at Commons, I recommend that you don't mention this: if you do mention it, then your explanation becomes long and complicated. Just have it deleted, and later, work to have it restored, legally. Oh, and a small point: I believe (and hope) that you can write comments on this page, you don't need to use the "unprotected" page. -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah great thank you! Ill try this! I just wrote to you again as I thought you deleted my message, sorry for this. As I said, Im very new to Wikipedia and still seem to get a lot wrong. Hopefully this will get better. THANK YOU! Ill try and solve the copyright Issue now. Best, AnnoAnnoYMWD (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC) I've nominated the image now for deletion an have uploaded another one in the meantime. I hope this will resolve itself soon, so I can add Richters Collage once more. Regarding the Notification on the draft of possibly Daniel Richter writing this article, how/when will this disappear ?Thank you! Regards, AAnnoYMWD (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AnnoYMWD, first things first. You've now uploaded a self portrait by HP (File:Hanna Putz, Self Portrait, 2020.jpg), saying which web page you got it from (www.hannaputz.com/portraits/); however, that web page says nothing about any Creative Commons license. Where is the permission for you to post it to Wikimedia Commons, saying that it's released under a CC license? -- Hoary (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hoary,I thought uploading a self portrait from her website would be ok to post as I thought that makes it clear a/ where it came from and b/ who owns the copyright, which is obviously Mr.Putz This seems to be wrong aswel.. Maybe you could help me by letting me know what kind of a photo Im allowed to upload or which kind of a permission In which form I would need to be able to upload either the self portrait or the Collage of Mr. Richter? AnnoYMWD (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AnnoYMWD, if you are the copyright holder of a photograph, then you have the right either to release it under an appropriate Creative Commons (CC) license (while retaining copyright) or to donate it to the public domain (that is, to waive any claim to copyright); either way, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons (WC). If you find a photograph whose copyright holder either has explicitly released it under an appropriate CC license (a rare occurrence) or has explicitly donated it to the public domain (an extremely rare occurrence), then you can upload it to WC, making sure to say that copyright belongs to the copyright holder (that it's not your "own work"). That's all that you can do. (You may have heard of "fair use" of other copyright material, but you can never cite "fair use" for a photograph of a living person.) This is one reason why a very high percentage of articles about living people don't have photographs. -- Hoary (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:I hate you, 2016 by Daniel Richter.jpg, you say that you've realized that uploading the file was a mistake, but you don't explain. You therefore expect other people to guess or investigate the nature of the mistake. Please explain there. (Or should I do so, for you?) -- Hoary (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did this as I understood your advice to be not to explain the whole thing as that would make things more complicated (> 'If you think that you can later get explicit permission for the picture to be at Commons, I recommend that you don't mention this: if you do mention it, then your explanation becomes long and complicated. Just have it deleted, and later, work to have it restored, legally)thats why I only wrote that it was a mistake. I can now add: the fact that Im new here and simply made a mistake, the fact that I have the permission to use the photo&collage by Mr.Richter and that I know now that the credit for the photo lies with VG Bildkunst who owns all copyright credits to any work of Mr.Richter. Would that explanation help to have it deleted? I can ofc do that. However Im still not sure I understand what I need to then upload it again to make it a 'Commons'? Thanks!Best A. AnnoYMWD (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AnnoYMWD, you raise a lot of points, and I'm going to have to be selective. "Commons" might refer to a Creative Commons license (a copyleft license) or to Wikimedia Commons (a website). (They're the products of different organizations.) "[E]xplicit permission for the picture to be at Commons": I meant, to be at Wikimedia Commons (WC). "[U]pload it again to make it a 'Commons'": This doesn't make sense. The copyright holder, who you say is VG Bildkunst, may choose to attach a Creative Commons (CC) license to it. If it does so, and if the particular CC license meets WC's requirements, and if word of this goes directly from VG Bildkunst to WC, then the photo can be reuploaded. -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I might have got it now; I would either need a written permission (found the template) by Daniel Richter for the Collage or Hanna Putz for the Self Portrait to use the image on Wikipedia as Commons which basically means to give away all the rights to have this image used and or reproduced for everything by anyone until forever, yes?Or does that mean only on wikipedia? Meaning, this copyright permission doesnt mean that the photo can be used commercially etc. by anyone? This written permission by the original copyright holder I email to the commons email address (ev. together with the bespoke photo) and upload the photo. Correct? Thank you A. AnnoYMWD (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now I don't understand. If copyright to Richter's work is held by VG Bildkunst, then it's VG Bildkunst, not Richter, who has to give permission. If a file is uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (WC), then anyone can use that file, for any purpose (including commercial purposes): see Commons:Licensing (or in German, Commons:Lizenzen. The copyright holder cannot change their mind later about Creative Commons (CC), but does continue to be the copyright holder and thus to have certain rights (see either of those two WC pages). The person depicted (Putz) has personality rights to her image in US law and I'd guess also in Austrian and other law. -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hoary, got it, thanks for the explanation! I'll email Mrs. Putz Assistant then again to see if she's willing to give out an Image of hers (she owns the copyright too, in terms of it being a self portrait and not a photo of another photographer) and to sign the permission template I found on wikipedia.I hope I got it right this time and that this will work out.Thanks again,Best AnnoYMWD (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hoary, I hope this finds you well. Hannas Page has finally been approved after quite some time, which is great - however it still has that mark on it saying 'A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. This 'problem' was solved by you already so how or when will this finally be removed? Or is there anything else I can do to help have it removed? Thank you! Best, AnnoYMWD (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)AnnoYMWD[reply]

Congratulations on the articlification, AnnoYMWD. I've removed the COI template. However, as you'll see, I've added some other templates. (I've also done some other work on the article: altogether, this.) I did not set out to check the references, but I did look at two of them, and one of the two was an interview with her. (Or anyway it said it was. In order to read it, I'd have to register. In my experience, sites that demand registration that's free of charge spam any mail address that registers, and so I was in no mood to register.) There are also a lot of references to Putz's own website. All in all, quite a lot of the article about Putz depends on what she chooses to say about herself. This doesn't seem to have worried SL93 (who promoted the draft to an article), but it's a major flaw. Please work to develop the article so that it becomes entirely based on material written by people who are independent of Putz. -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I promoted the draft because my understanding is that reviewers are to approve drafts that they believe have a chance of surviving AfD. My accept was based on her work being a part of a permanent collection in a museum which not many photographers can claim. I also took into account that it would be hard for many English speakers to find non-English sources. SL93 (talk) 12:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SL93, we read "Article submissions that are likely to survive an AfD nomination should be accepted and published to mainspace"; and to me, "are likely to survive" sounds quite a lot more demanding than "have a chance of surviving", though I probably shouldn't read too much into your (hurried?) choice of words. Maybe I'm too strict: I tend to look for submissions that are unlikely to risk an AfD nomination. That's because, increasingly, I'm tending to think that a draft or article that isn't worth doing well isn't worth doing at all; or to put it another way (following the much-missed Geogre), that nothing is often better than something. I do seem to decline an awful lot, but that's because I think they should and can be improved; I reject very few (here's a recent example). -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That criteria is what I meant. We will have to disagree, but I'm basing it on the permanent exhibition and sources that have reception of her and her work such as [3], [4], [5], and [6]. The references are not only about Hanna Putz, but that has never been a requirement for notability - "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." I do have more declines than accepts also. As for the part of "a draft or article that isn't worth doing well isn't worth doing at all", AFC mostly has new editors who may need a guiding hand to know the quality that Wikipedia accepts. SL93 (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, SL93, I don't doubt that she merits an article. I think and hope I've helped AnnoYMWD to some degree, though I wouldn't be surprised if this help (if it even was help) was annoying at times. I spend perhaps too much time at Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Visual arts, and I have to say that a lot of what's listed there is more or less promotional (though usually discreetly rather than offensively so); it probably makes me jaded at times. Meanwhile, it's been over two months since I last created an article; I was fairly happy with it when I first pressed "Publish changes" but quickly realized that it had serious problems. -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. It's normally hard for me to stay at AFC for a long time because I get annoyed at notable topics with dreadful articles, declines that are not based on anything in the reviewing criteria, and such. For some reason, I have had editors who I have never interacted with before trying to ask me to review their articles. It happens on days when I decide to be very active with AFC and I ignore those requests for help. SL93 (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then, SL93, there's the matter of the dreadfulness of long-standing articles. Why should I suggest merging the worthwhile minority of the content of Draft:Transbay Columns with this article when the latter doesn't obviously merit survival? (I've tinkered with it since, but it's still feeble.) One could just send it off to AfD, but really there's no "just" about it: AfDs consume a lot of time. -- Hoary (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you two :) Firstly thanks to both of you for your help. As this was my first article, Ive obviously made some mistakes in the beginning..I have to say though that it isnt entirely true that 'there are a lot of references to her own website'. There are references to her website but thats because she has a PRESS section on her website that made it easy for me to have some of the press on her all combined together and not have to go each and every article individually. It initially was also not true that most references are from interviews with her - I did f.e. put in 3 quotes from respected curators (f.e. Susan Bright) talking about Putzs work from various texts which were all deleted (?). However, I generally understand some concerns here. The reason I wrote the article on Putz is that I think that there should be more wikipedia articles written on younger women in the artworld, also when their in the beginning of their career (34 is still young for an artist in Putzs field) in order for them to get the visibility they deserve in an, until very recently, mainly male dominated art world. So Im happy this worked out now with your help. So again, thanks for checking on the article and for your approval. I'll try and improve some more when I can. Best, AnnoYMWD (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)A[reply]

Dear Hoary, I confirm you that I personally uploaded the photo [7] to Wikidata. When I started writing the draft of

Considering your wikipedia experience, I would like to ask you for some advice, since I don't know who took the photo in question that was sent to me, how should I change the default "own work" text. Would "unknown author" be ok? Thanks again EnḫeduannaS (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EnḫeduannaS, there are various problems here. First, what you described as your "own work" isn't your own work; and therefore, however innocent your intentions were, you provided false information. Secondly, the person who owns the copyright of a photograph is usually the person who took the photograph, not the person who's photographed. (If you pay a commercial photographer to photograph yourself, your wedding, your baby, etc, the photographer normally retains the copyright.) There are indeed exceptions. Perhaps Conrad does own the copyright. But the copyright holder (whether Conrad, the photographer, or somebody else) has to satisfy Wikimedia Commons that they are indeed the copyright holder. Please see Commons:Volunteer Response Team, and particular the section "If you are NOT the copyright holder". The process prescribed there starts: "Before you upload the file to Commons, please identify and contact the copyright holder and ask them to release the work under a free license." But of course you've already uploaded it. What should you do? I don't know; you'd better ask at the "copyright" area of Commons' "village pump". -- Hoary (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hoary, thank you for your answer and suggestions.
It's my first page draft and upload to Wikimedia, I really apologise for my newbie mistake. I will immediately remove the "own work" row (to avoid spreading false news on Wikimedia :) ) and in the meantime I will contact the "copyright" area of Commons' "village pump" to ask for their advice, as suggested. With respect to your second point: "the person who owns the copyright of a photograph is usually the person who took the photograph, not the person who's photographed", I share your view. When I wrote to Conrad I explicitly asked for a photo that could be uploaded as CC on Wikimedia, so he should own the copyright for that photo.
Thanks again! EnḫeduannaS (talk) 07:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How did you know that Brothernotuser1 was a sock of a globally locked user, JustAUser201468? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 12:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I inferred it from this. Did I make a mistake? If so, please ask some other admin to fix it. (It's my bed time.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Draft:Luis Fitch and other drafts, User:Anitnepres has stated here [8] that “articles were written by neutral third parties, and I have been paid to upload them to Wikipedia.” an unusual situation that I haven’t come across before. Theroadislong (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. Thank you for the heads-up, Theroadislong. I've responded there, mostly on the matter of references; I've also added a new comment to that one draft. -- Hoary (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hoary,

Just FYI, when you restore an expired draft, a CSD G13, you (or the page creator) has to make an edit to the page or it immediately pops back up on a list of pages that are eligible for speedy deletion. A new edit resets the clock. There is a nifty script, RFUD-helper, that takes care of the edit for you after you restore an expired draft. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, sorry Liz. I knew I was sleepy when I made that edit; I didn't know how sleepy I was. -- Hoary (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Stephan Vanfleteren, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the photographer Stephan Vanfleteren crossed the US while modelling as Presley and photographing a friend modelling as Elvis? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stephan Vanfleteren. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Stephan Vanfleteren), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to bother you but if poss. could you take a look at this item and in particular this edit summary. I feel this is rather unnecessary and really suggests to me that this editor is maybe not going to be of a 'collaborative' spirit. Pretty much a personal attack, presumably 'just because' I declined their not-yet-ready draft. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah... not to worry, the editor concerned has apologised via eMail, so AGF and all that. Though if you are curious it is now at Draft:Kennedy Mitchell. Thanks anyway! Eagleash (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Eagleash, I've been out. Yes, you aroused my curiosity. Hmm ... somehow I get the impression that the writer was unhappy. If I had been honored with such an edit summary, it would have gone straight onto my user page. But perhaps my approach is unusual. -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes not best pleased I would say! And agreed, that would be an unusual approach. Still, think it's under control now... Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this thing again, Eagleash, I'm surprised that you spent time on it. I've rejected it. -- Hoary (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not very good but I was not of the opinion that it was utterly without hope as it were. But now a little time has passed...CCS is pretty low and perhaps you are right to reject it; not something I would do 'straight-off' myself, as a rule, so well... there we are, stand-by for more verbal abuse perhaps? 23:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry you got dragged into this. Better than Kate Middleton's extended family.... er no! I have just left another reply at the editor's TP. I pinged you there as they had attempted to do so but

WP:CIR. Seems there's a possible COI or paid issue too. Left messages. Eagleash (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I think that your "possible" is an understatement. That matter aside, please, Eagleash, let us not besmirch the august Middleton (or Lupton) family by such comparisons. And anyway, the mild (if chronic) problem with that genealogical enterprise is not the most noble subject matter (how could it be?) or its untiring historian, but the historian's mysterious "device", which is so remarkably different from anybody else's. -- Hoary (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, it's about 9AM here and I am more or less 'unavailable' for the next few hours. If he's fallen foul of ANI or something by the time I return I may not find it altogether a shock. Eagleash (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little update; somethng else reminded me of ths issue but I had to come to your TP for 'total recall'. Only then could I fnd the actual draft. Mitchell, or whoever, blanked the page in December, wth the summary 'speedy deletion'. So have requested G7. Too late for happy new year? OK; creme eggs are in the shops in UK. Happy Xmas 2022. Eagleash (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for helping me yesterday. So I decided to write to you. Do you know why DeltaQuadBot stopped deleting old versions of files? I download them a lot and he always hide old versions. Now he does not do this, although he does the edits. Is this intentional or a glitch? Or should I write to the owner of the bot? — Vladlen Manilov ✉ / 05:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Vladlen Manilov, I'm completely unfamiliar with DeltaQuadBot. I do notice that it's described as something that "RevDels non-free orphaned revisions"; are you sure that the old versions you have in mind are both (i) non-free and (ii) orphaned? ("Non-free"": usable only with a credible claim of "fair use"; not transferrable to Commons. The majority of old versions are orphaned, but the majority of files are not non-free.) If yes, they are both non-free and orphaned, then I suggest that you write a message at User talk:AmandaNP. -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is non-free and orphaned. Okay, I'll write to AmandaNP. — Vladlen Manilov ✉ / 08:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Very Good Md Nahid Islam Sumon (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for accepting and tidying my article creation!

Thought Aquarium (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you, Thought Aquarium. Goats are much appreciated. They keep the driveway free of weeds (and of flowers, accidentally dropped gloves, and anything else). -- Hoary (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for reviewing my page, Crowd of Women. I was just wondering if the "long passages" you were referring to were the reviews I typed out? Should I shorten them? What do you suggest?

Always, thank you for your time.

Draft:Crowd of Women Weelarkobar (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Weelarkobar, the reviews. One might expect long quoted passages to be commoner in long articles than in shorter ones. However, even in good ("featured") long articles about (good or bad) art -- such as The Disasters of War, The Destroying Angel..., The Colossus of Rhodes, An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump, and Warlugulong -- we don't find them. Please summarize what within these long passages really seems worthwhile. Do so in your own words. Only retain the original wording where it can't be distilled or bettered; and if you do retain it, of course put it in quotation marks. -- Hoary (talk) 08:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,Hoary 1.Thank you for your guidance, its translated from Chinese.sorry,It's my fault.I'll correct it. 2.This draft is done in cooperation with the hiring company, and what you want to ask ? --YKK0228 (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your candour, YKK0228. For the time being, the draft will have to carry a warning template. -- Hoary (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC) corrected Hoary (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: No it won't, YKK0228. You've put one on the talk page; this is all that's needed. -- Hoary (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary You means pay template or translate template ?--YKK0228 (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both a paid-contributor template and a translation template are needed, YKK0228. When I last looked at the talk page, you'd added both, so all's well. -- Hoary (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary Thank you for your guidance, and waiting to move to new entry.--YKK0228 (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hoary,

Thank you for your review of this draft. I look at hundreds of expiring G13 drafts every day, 99% of them are in pretty poor or even abysmal shape and I thought this one was better than most so I submitted it for AFC review. I appreciate you looking it over and giving it an evaluation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Liz. I've brought the matter up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt; I hope persuasively. -- Hoary (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day, Hoary, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Bobherry Talk Edits 17:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

Hi Hoary,I hope I'm responding to your note in the right spot. Yes, the draft title should be as you changed it. I couldn't figure it out! Thanks! Afewthings Afewthings (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Er, well,

Joseph Biden; to see how that works, click on this.) And don't worry: if redirects seem baffling, once your draft has become an article, somebody -- Softlavender

, I, or somebody else -- can easily make the redirects that would be beneficial for Powsey.

I hope you're enjoying the sources that Softlavender is unearthing. If you ignored them all and simply submitted the draft now, I'm pretty certain that it would be accepted. But please take your time, and here's why. A very large number of articles are created every day, and few receive much attention. (It could be said that few merit much attention.) This draft is unusually interesting and the article into which it will pupate will merit attention. If you look at Wikipedia's top page, you'll see a list of "Did you know?" ("DYK") items. Some weeks from now, the article on Powsey should be among them. Now, getting this to happen requires compliance with a dismayingly complex-looking set of rules. But these turn out to be a lot less complex than they look. I have some experience in this matter and can help you. Here's all that you have to remember at this stage. The article mustn't have any copyright or other serious issues (and of course your draft currently does not); every cited source must verify what it's presented as saying (you should be very careful with this one); there must be at least one thing within the article that's surprising and can be expressed in a few words (well, for one, that he was doing stunt dives till the age of 75); and as an article it must be no more than seven days old. (Its age as a draft doesn't matter.) Safer to think of the seven days as five. Getting this draft into an article that qualifies for DYK shouldn't be hard. If you succeed, you get bragging rights; but more importantly very many more people will see the article, and if you're lucky then among them will be somebody who's knowledgable and who will be able to cite sources that are new to you and thereby to augment the article in a worthwhile way. -- Hoary (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance on the issue I raised at the tea house Alvinategyeka (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A

Hoary,
I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A token of thanks Hi Hoary! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, you helped me with the vandalism in Dilar Dirik, and i would like to ask for another help. Turns out the person expressed her desire to not be in wikipedia, because of many reasons relating to her present public condition, so i am trying to figure out how i can put it in the elimination process. I am not new in wikipedia, but as a user of wiki.pt i dont really know how to navigate here, because the interface is different. Anyway, thanks for the attention. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JoaquimCebuano, please add "{{Db-g7}}" to the top of the page, and write as an edit summary something like "Requesting speedy deletion, as I realize she's unlikely to satisfy notability criteria". -- Hoary (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, JoaquimCebuano! See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilar Dirik. I suggest that you write a comment there identifying yourself as the creator of the article and agreeing with the proposal to delete it. (Don't mention the subject's desire not to have an article: this is not a valid argument for deletion, and bringing up her opinion would just derail the discussion.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh... I already mentioned it, sorry, should have looked here first. But i did agree with the elimination, and also this fact was mentioned by someone else. Thanks for the help! JoaquimCebuano (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, JoaquimCebuano, that was a confused few hours, and rather a waste of your time; but I'm happy to see that the matter has been quickly and (in the end) neatly resolved. I hope that the experience hasn't dissuaded you from persevering at English-language Wikipedia. It's always hard to work in a second language; but I'm sure that even without looking for them you'll come across defective articles here about Lusophone subjects (articles that are seriously out of date, that have serious imbalances, that depend on inferior sources, that misinterpret good sources, etc); perhaps you can fix some of these and thereby become more accustomed to editing here, so that a little later you'll find it easier to create articles from scratch. -- Hoary (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HoaryThank you very much, i appreciated your help. I had some bad experiences on pt wikipedia, and it didnt make me give up yet, so i guess this will not be the case either. I will try to do exactly what you suggested, hope i can contribute! JoaquimCebuano (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my delay in responding, I haven't seen Wikipedia in a week. In Japan, idol culture is too big to ignore, and there have been many scandals. However, other than this scandal, there are not many other scandals involving idols that are regularly featured on TV or in magazines. In the Japanese Wikipedia, this article exists independently from the Onyanoko Club article. There are only a few sources for Onyanoko Club-related articles, so I took care of that. I think this is a rare case of a group of underage idols with a promising future being deprived of their careers due to smoking.

おニャン子クラブ"消された”メンバーの末路 Onyanko Club: The consequences of the "erased" members https://npn.co.jp/article/detail/200003835 アイドルの彷徨い The Wanderings of Idols https://dwcla.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=pages_view_main&active_action=repository_view_main_item_detail&item_id=539&item_no=1&page_id=13&block_id=21 Former Nintendo Idol Now Treads the Sales Floor https://kotaku.com/former-nintendo-idol-now-treads-the-sales-floor-5816959 Japanese Schoolgirl Confidential: How Teenage Girls Made a Nation Cool https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=fdHZAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=scandal+onyanko&source=bl&ots=i0bDEXYwo9&sig=ACfU3U2Dx0ScZfMMlIZFYgt20hBMt92wrw&hl=ja&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwidy56-46P1AhWNPZQKHZVaBbQQ6AF6BAgMEAM#v=onepage&q=scandal%20onyanko --Neko100 (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neko100, here in Tokyo I'm pretty successful at ignoring aidoru culture. But I'd agree that it has a certain sociological/psychological interest (and perhaps other interest too); and I'm certainly not saying either that it has no place in Wikipedia or that this draft of yours shouldn't be an article. I just wonder why the article has to be so very long. As for your statement that "there are not many other scandals involving idols that are regularly featured on TV or in magazines", I rarely look at TV or into magazines these days; but the last time I looked, the magazines in particular (and the sports tabloids) were full of "scandals" involving aidoru. (They were terribly prudish, with "shocking" photographs of aidoru plus "friend" holding hands, and similar trivia.) But perhaps by "scandal" you mean not the "scandals" allegedly committed by the aidoru, but instead the scandalously prurient treatment by the shūkanshi etc. (I blame the public, for reading/watching/buying this junk.) Anyway, keep working on the draft, if possible trim its excesses, and good luck with it. -- Hoary (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, do you have access to

Yes, he's mentioned on p269 (in the entry for

ISBN 4-8169-1948-1), however. -- Hoary (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Page 84. (If you're unfamiliar with this reference book, I have to warn you that it's particularly dreary.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be terse, RoseCherry64, but I'm a bit rushed today. Sometime fairly soon I'll look through it and see if it says anything that could be usefully added to the article. -- Hoary (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries and thank you, I'm getting this exhibition catalog (

Done (for now), RoseCherry64. I didn't format the references in the way that you've been using: sorry for the resulting inconsistency, but I plead laziness. Please reformat as you will. A small point, but I always wonder about whether/how to use pre-simplification kanji; for 写真芸術社, I've also provided 寫眞藝術社 (I don't know how to get the last character looking right). I see that for the most part you've been using simplified forms (a sensible choice), but that you have for example 近代音樂囘想錄. The book 日本の写真家 also has publication details for a number of the man's books, but I plead laziness again. Anyway, such details wouldn't obviously be beneficial, as anyone interested could easily look them up at CiNii (and anyone unable to use CiNii would have no use for the details). -- Hoary (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huge thanks for the additions and no worries about not using consistent citation, always easily fixable later. I formatted the references and also moved the sections about his other topics of interest to personal life. The cite book template unfortunately doesn't allow for also denoting names in non-Latin scripts, afaik.

Non-simplified kanji is certainly annoying to encounter, and I haven't given it too much thought in the article. Perhaps I will make sure it's consistent in the near future. Most contemporary sources will use simplified versions and maybe include a footnote, for obvious reasons. I hope all my romanizations of the titles of his works are adequate, but I also kinda did the lazy route and relied maybe a bit too much on bibliographic information from library catalogs. RoseCherry64 (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But for this purpose, I'd use CiNii rather than Worldcat. Fewer errors and omissions, in my experience. (Of course for a book that doesn't have ISBN, it's still a good idea to give the OCLC number.) ¶ Well well, this is very educational for me: I've learned that the soberest of blogs may have the damnedest titles. -- Hoary (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the harsh title, it is a blog by a professor at Osaka College of Music and select entries were later published in a book by a larger publisher. Truly a case of not judging a book by it's cover, or in this case, title. RoseCherry64 (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have some good sources I think the Forbes , Gotham mag and nyc post most definitely best ones Deivilooney (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then, Deivilooney, please say this at Wikipedia:Teahouse#I_need_help. -- Hoary (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done this for you. -- Hoary (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, could you fix all the ref 6,7,8,10,11 and 12 of

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at

Wanted to share our MetAfrofuturist report of new and improved articles related to the exhibition, and invite you to share at the Black Lunch Table office hours at 12pm Eastern on Sunday!

For a preview, the new articles so far are: Before Yesterday We Could Fly, Yinka Ilori, Zizipho Poswa, Thomas Commeraw, Flying Africans, Period room, and Letter 47 (Seneca).

We'd also invite you to join the Discord channel for the rest of February, if you haven't already.--Pharos (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am really sorry, but I have moved a post you made from

As you can see, he/she responded in a positive way on his/her user page and also removed the offending post from

Talk:Orania, Northern Cape -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, Toddy1, they removed the allegation from the offending post. Far better to have used <del>...</del>, as recommended. Still, acceptable. -- Hoary (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genuine editors with 536 edits tend not to know things like that.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i have edited references on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gazeta_e_pavarur can you check it please if it is better now? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junuzsalihi99 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. We now read: Gazeta e Pavarur (Independent Newspaper) is a daily newspaper in the Albanian language, published in Albania, North Macedonia and Kosovo. It is the largest newspaper in Albania. Its website is popular in Albania, North Macedonia and Kosovo and in the Albanian diaspora. This says very little. Here are some ideas: When was it started? By "largest newspaper", do you mean "newspaper with the largest circulation/sales/readership", or something else? Whatever you mean by it, when did it achieve this (and what other newspaper did it overtake)? In most nations, printed newspapers are struggling with declining sales and declining ad revenue; is Gazeta e Pavarur (or Albania) an exception? Is "Independent" just a vague aspiration, or does it reflect the fact that, unusually, Gazeta e Pavarur is not tied to a political party, to an industrial group, etc? In practice, does it tend to side with one or more political parties? Does it present investigative journalism; and if it does, are any examples particularly noteworthy? Has it had any noteworthy disputes with the government, or got into any serious legal troubles? Does it have correspondents based outside Albania/N Macedonia/Kosovo? Does it sponsor any cultural or other events? -- Hoary (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Join our MetAfrofuturist End-of-Month Zoom Meetup - more details forthcoming at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/MetAfrofuturist#Sunday Feb_27: End-of-Month Zoom Meetup.

Time: Feb 27, 2022 02:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)

Join Zoom Meeting

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88668086189?pwd=Zy83MjZCK0djeTZkdFVqZkpjUlZSQT09

Meeting ID: 886 6808 6189

Passcode: AfroFuture

You are also welcome to join our Discord channel for this campaign:

--Pharos (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you for explaining the error in my ways! I'll know better for next time! QuickQuokka [talk] 04:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your gudie for my inquiry about the_controversial_photos. Please feel free to advise me via my talk page if you have any suggestions or opinions for my writing below. ^[1] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks but the thing is i got a topic but i just don't get how to like create it Like adding the heading Adding my information like successful article I just find it complicated to structure out the ideas i have ,i just need someone to teach me step by step Newzlighter (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is what i need help with Newzlighter (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its not the information and ideas that you have, it's the information and ideas that reliable, disinterested, published sources have. Once you've amassed enough of these, try Help:Your first article, and what it links to. -- Hoary (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hoary. Was wondering if you'd mind taking a look at Dave Umahi? Things have kind of settled down a bit now, but there was a bit of edit warring going on earlier today. A number of editors have tried to explain to Markegwu on a couple of different pages what was wrong with their approach, but nobody seems to have had much success. Maybe they will be more inclined to listen to an admin. Anyway, I didn't revert again since there now seems to be a discussion taking place on the article's talk page, and didn't think there would be much point stirring the pots. Perhaps you wouldn't mind watching the article for a bit in case the reverting starts back up again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Another editor has reverted back to the last stable version (though the edit summary that was left claims they reverted vandalism, which I don't believe was the case per

WP:NOTVAND). Anyway, perhaps that will be the end of the edit wrring and nothing more needs to be done than to let those involved resolve things on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Good morning (my time), Marchjuly. It seems that I slept through all of that. But I've added this. -- Hoary (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing that. That could explain a lot and might be the reason why the account suddenly showed up out of the blue to make those changes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the “self cite” stuff might possibly just be a mistake made because this editor doesn’t seem to understand how to format a citation, but it’s a concern if not. What’s more of a concern, however, is that your block doesn’t seemed to have slowed them down one iota. They’ve reverted back to edit warring and

WP:REVTALK stuff since the block ran out, and there might’ve had also been some socking going on since a new account suddenly showed up during the block to make similar changes. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Now blocked for one week, Marchjuly. NB the conspicuous new participant isn't a new account: they have edits dating back to September 2019. -- Hoary (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the confusing use of "new". I meant "new account" in that it's new to the article and the ongoing dispute. The account made some edits back in 2019, stopped, started up again after your block, and seems to have stopped again after the first block ran out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've read your remarks regarding my article and I'm grateful to you for taking the time to guide me to the errors I've made. I've now edited the article according to your review. Mainly, I removed all the unreliable sources, added the trans tag to the french and Arabic sources, and fixed the unnecessary promotional tone. I'd appreciate it if you could give it another read and see if it needs further editing. Thank you, Rymknows23 (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rymknows23, I've made a few changes to it. It could be improved here and there, but it already seems a pretty good candidate for promotion. -- Hoary (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, thank you for improving the article. However, I wonder why you're reluctant to approve it. Regards, ~~~~ Rymknows23 (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rymknows23, you're interpreting as reluctance what was (i) busy-ness in "real life", and (ii) sleepiness. Approving it seemed to require creation of Category:Algerian companies established in 2017, and creating that category certainly required creation of Category:Companies of Algeria by year of establishment (whose previous non-existence amazes me); creating both took little time, but it all adds up. -- Hoary (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, Thank you so much for helping me throughout the process. just to clarify things, by reluctance I only meant to ask for further details on where the article is lacking and how I can improve it. Thank you for making the Wiki experience easier, Regards,~~~~ Rymknows23 (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for mentioning me. It was a bit difficult to follow and my hope is that my explanation served to help you and others determine what happened even if only as a stating point. In regards to the situation itself, I knew you would offer sound counsel and I wanted to give you a chance to do so. You delivered on that with your usual wisdom and understanding. --ARoseWolf 12:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, ARoseWolf. I have to say that something about the request makes me feel slightly queasy; I hope that my vague premonitions are mistaken. -- Hoary (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are most likely spot on. I have the same premonitions, only stronger, and I'm rarely wrong. --ARoseWolf 13:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, but the article was nominated for deletion under the assumption that the topic isn't notable and the sources are mere local news. can you please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FoodBeeper? Rymknows23 (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears their back again with a new account with a different url. [9]. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lavalizard101, thank you for letting me know. I quickly applied for a sitewide (and not just English-language) blacklisting. But that was a close thing: I almost didn't turn on my computer, because actually I'd been looking forward to reading a chapter or two of a dead-trees codex before going to bed. Crossing my fingers that we've significantly obstructed the fraudsters, and now turning off the computer.... -- Hoary (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy adminship anniversary! Hi Hoary! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy 16th anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you, Sdkb. Just to think, a mere 16 years ago, lazy people like me could sail through the RfA process. How times have changed! -- Hoary (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy adminship anniversary! Hi Hoary! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy 16th anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! --Isro! chatter 18:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you, Axisroi. But maybe once a year is enough. (Compare the thread immediately above.) Actually I think once every five years is enough. Unless perhaps the actual purpose of the procedure is to convey the message "Ahem! Remember that you're an admin? And that there are lists of tasks to be attended to? Get to work!" -- Hoary (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You probably need admin magic powers to read the exact number of page watchers. For the common folk such as me, it shows as "less than 30". Someone told me at some point that this is intentional so that vandals cannot target pages with few watchers. You might want to refrain posting such information in the future. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 08:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oopsie! I'd quite forgotten that, Tigraan. If I'd ever known it, that is. Whatever it was. Wait, what are we talking about, anyway? Nice weather we're having. -- Hoary (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 April 18 § File:Grove House School.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hoary. Just letting you know about this as a courtesy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, thank you, Marchjuly, I suppose. But this bit: "If it turns out that the 2009 book was the first time the file was published, then it would almost certainly be PD in the US and most likely PD in the UK too." Really? I'm confused. -- Hoary (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right. It was a mistake on my part. I moved some stuff around before hitting "Publish changes", but didn't double check to make sure things made sense. Thank for catching that. I think it's OK now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About the New Article The Narayanganj Page Zahidul Is Chowdhury (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zahidul Is Chowdhury, please see this (in the "teahouse"). -- Hoary (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kateryna Antonovych, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ukrainian artist Kateryna Antonovych worked at Prague's Museum of Ukraine's Struggle for Independence before the US Air Force bombed it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kateryna Antonovych. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Kateryna Antonovych), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cwmhiraeth. I hope that my contribution both improved the then-draft a little and prodded others to improve it further, but it certainly did no more than that. -- Hoary (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Three years!

=== Precious anniversary ==? Thank you for the article, anyway. precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just ventured to your user page and noticed that you've started the article for Issei Suda!! He happens to be a favorite of mine and I have a signed edition of his famous goat (Ginzan Onsen, Yamagata, from the series Fushi Kaden, 1976) -- would it violate copyright policy if I personally take a picture of his photograph framed and hanging on my wall to add to his article?

SleepyWhippet (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking, SleepyWhippet, and I have to say that you have excellent taste in photography. (I imagine that his prints would be beyond my budget and anyway I'd have nowhere to pin them up. I do have a number of his books, however.) To your question: yes it would. You could successfully apply a great amount of laboriously acquired skill to the reproduction of a 2D image by Suda, or on the contrary (perhaps thinking of copyright concerns) you could reproduce it sloppily -- no matter: the copyright would be Suda's (or, now, his estate's), not yours. Your upload would be flagged and deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, thank you for the heads up. Very clearly, you clearly have incredible knowledge and taste in photography as well, just by judging by the pages you've contributed to! SleepyWhippet (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hoary, hope you're keeping well. Could you take a peek at Masanori Ashida and see if you think there might be enough sources out there to hit GNG? I always trust your judgement on these guys - it's another Polbot stub. Otherwise I'm probably going to PROD it, since I couldn't find much on a search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morning, PMC! I don't think that Ashida is among the better known half or thereabouts of the photographers covered in the (now very dated) book 328 Outstanding [...].

Four of his prints are in the collection of the

WP:GNG

.

If this went to AfD, I'd happily say: Yes, I believe that he's noteworthy and merits an article. Delete this wretched substub (while not deterring anyone from creating something worthwhile on the same subject), because it isn't the slightest help to anyone who might be interested in Ashida and does nothing to encourage any editor to develop it. Worse, the visibility of lazily mass-produced junk like this could well encourage other editors to produce more of the same. Or indeed to make hoax additions to this and others that already exist.

Incidentally, the article

Draft:Tarō Otsuka (which I discovered just yesterday): problematic in some ways, but delightfully energetic. -- Hoary (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Hoary, thanks for having a look for me. I've put a PROD on it, hopefully nobody comes back and forces an AfD (will ping if I get stuck doing one though). Energetic is a great way to describe that draft, lol. It's very...it's quite a lot. Hopefully it can be cleaned up for mainspace, as it does look worth something. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, PMC, look what happened. It still exists, and it's still junk (now sporting a Bonus Fact). I invite Netherzone to convert it into something worth looking at. -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw the de-PROD at the time and didn't feel like spending the time to analyse the sources and argue at AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello you two! Hoary, it's on my watchlist for improvement, but you know...no deadlines. It would help if I could read Japanese, but I'm afraid I don't have enough years left on Earth to learn another language. PMC, sorry if I stepped on your toes by removing the PROD. The photographer is notable, however it may remain a perma-stub. Feel free to delete it if either of you think that's best. Personally I don't think it harms anything to exist here other than to take up a tiny bit of digital space. I do believe it may be useful for readers to discover the works in collections, however the article has only had ~1500 page views since it was created. Netherzone (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed, PRODs are meant to be removed if you disagree with the rationale, which is fair. I just never got around to actually analysing the sources, and then forgot about it. If sources exist to meet GNG, it's not really a permastub - the possibility for expansion exists so long as the sourcing does, and as you say, there is no deadline. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hoary, I think Ive seen you multiple times helping editors at teahouse. If you have free time or willing to help me incorporate the 2 sources "Immersion, Narrative, and Gender Crisis in Survival Horror Video Games" and "Erfolgreiches Charakterdesign für Computer- und Videospiele" on the article Ada Wong at Reception section that user gave me [10]. Im not really familiar on using books or novels. Thank you. Appreciates any help. BloatedBun (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, BloatedBun, but I can't read German, video games and Japanese "popular culture" are complete blanks to me (if I attempt to read anything about either I soon doze off), and I have no experience of editing articles about fictional characters. Better luck elsewhere. (How about asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games?) -- Hoary (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the reply. I think I will wait for it to be copyedited, then send it to GAN, and afterwards let the GA reviewer decide. BloatedBun (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just copyedited it, very lightly and rather hurriedly. Feel free to revert my edit in toto. Best of luck with the nomination! -- Hoary (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hoary,

I just submitted a AfC draft for

Thanks, SleepyWhippet (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hoary,

You tagged this article with an AFD tag but didn't follow through and create a discussion page. Did you change your mind about this nomination? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, Liz. Here I see that I'd created a discussion page before you said that I hadn't done so. Anyway, please feel free to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Abagnalo. Actually, I think I know what misled you: in an edit summary, I misspelt his name, pointing people to the non-existent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Abagnolo (note the penultimate vowel). Sorry about that. -- Hoary (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hoary for such a quick review of the submitted draft. I've now added other publications and ISBN/ISSNS and collaborations I can find which broaden the scope of the artist. I realise the (Guildford) obituary reference has disappeared and am trying to get them to re-upload, as in the absence of a Guardian obituary, much information is kept out of the digital domain. I won't resubmit until it has, but would you have a look and see if it now 'stable' enough without that? There is a wonderful obituary article series in The Jackdaw over two editions, but as it concentrates on notoriety and connection rather than nobility (just taken as a given there), I won't add anything of those but perhaps will add them to the review section just so people know they exist! Cazimir (talk) 09:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but Cazimir, the Guildford obituary is still available. (See my recent edit to your draft.) If by "connection" you mean that Freeman has been described as having been in this or that "circle", this is of little interest. What did he do, and how has this been recognized? -- Hoary (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you a message on your Commons talkpage. Letting you know here because I forget whether those notifs carry over to other wikis. Feel free to ignore the message, but it seemed important to me to respect the integrity and work of the professional photojournalist involved. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hello sir can you help me artist

Kay celis, you are repeating what you wrote at WP:Teahouse. Please explain what help you want, there (and not here). -- Hoary (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Hoary, I have created an article 2 month ago and I was searching image from wikipedia Commons of that article. But I am unable to find and during this image searching season I saw that many contributors are taking image from Facebook and Instagram then uploading those image on wikipedia under Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0). So I have also tried and uploaded a image[11], can you please check and tell me whether I have done correct or made any mistakes ? Thank you Samir Bishal (talk • contribs) 23:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Bishal, two or three questions for you. (1) Precisely where within Instagram does File:Sharly_Modak.jpg come from? (2) Does the Instagram source say "Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)"? (3) If the Instagram source does not say "Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)", then what, if anything, does it say about copyright? -- Hoary (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hoary:, as you asked me three questions. Let's me start from the first one. (1) I didn't get your question actually. (2) I don't know whether the Instagram source say "Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)"? And for that I reached out to you to know. (3) I don't know if the Instagram sources does say "(CC BY-SA 4.0)" or not, I just followed the step what other contributer are doing. Then came here to ask you for that. Please guide me, is the Instagram and Facebook says "(CC BY-SA 4.0)" ? If not then how to upload picture which is available on news portal or Facebook Instagram ? Samir Bishal (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Bishal, I have deleted the file as a copyright violation.

First question. If I tell you that La Brea is garbage because I read this in The Guardian, this is unhelpful. You might ask me where I read this within The Guardian's website; and if you did, I'd tell you "https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/aug/01/la-brea-review-this-sinkhole-drama-is-gloriously-brazenly-bad-i-love-it".

Second question. This page -- the page I'm writing on right now -- tells me "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." As you'll read it, the page says "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0; additional terms may apply." I do not understand how you don't know whether the Instagram source page says something or doesn't say it. To continue with the example above, https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/aug/01/la-brea-review-this-sinkhole-drama-is-gloriously-brazenly-bad-i-love-it does not say it. I know it doesn't, because, as I view the page with Firefox, searching within it for "creative", "attribution", etc, brings nothing. (On the contrary, the page says: "© 2022 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved." "All rights reserved" is incompatible with any Creative Commons license. Note that if 21st-century material -- and much earlier material too -- comes with no copyright information, you must assume that it too is conventionally copyright, "all rights reserved".)

If other contributors are fictitiously applying Creative Commons licenses to stuff they find at Instagram or anywhere else, then they are violating copyright.

"how to upload picture which is available on news portal or Facebook [or] Instagram": Simply, you cannot. (You can if it clearly says that it has an eligible Creative Commons license, but publicity material is only very rarely licensed in this way.)

I hope that all of this is clear now. If anything remains unclear, please post a question to either the teahouse or the help desk (but not both). -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: Thank you so much for being so gentle and teach me. Regards Samir Bishal (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Hoary!

I've just written to you and your colleague Mr Greenman on my talk page, but since I'm not sure whether my post will be read or not there in the foreseeable future, I dear to disturb you and repeat it here if you don't mind. Here is the text:

"Dear Mr Hoary and Mr Greenman!

Thank you for editing my article! It's a pity that it was declined by Mr Greenman for the second time because it seemed to me that I'd taken into consideration the first piece of advice that was offered by Mr Hoary and did my best to correct the mistakes. It is obviously that I'm not experienced enough in creating Wikipedia articles and need your help to fix all that is "out of joint". I've read all the instructions that were mentioned but failed... Would you be so kind to tell me what in particular should be corrected or added?"

Patiently waiting for your answer. L. Likalter (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the very late response, but you'll find it at User talk:L. Likalter#to_my_Editors. -- Hoary (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tpg.2022 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Choi Myoung Young (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Hoary. It's my first time to write in wikipedia, so I'm kind of drifting by myself. For your comment: first of all, yes, it's a translation to https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%B5%9C%EB%AA%85%EC%98%81 the korean wikipedia version of Choi. I have no conflict of interest with Choi. I'm a huge fan of him, and just wanted the artist to be known to international viewers. If it has a problem to translate the korean version, please let me know how I create a page for the artist. Thank you.

Tpg.2022 (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tpg.2022, an article in English-language Wikipedia may derive from an article in Korean-language Wikipedia. This does not mean that an English translation of a Korean article automatically qualifies for English-language Wikipedia. In Draft_talk:Choi_Myoung_Young, I pointed you towards information about translation. It doesn't seem that you've yet read it; or if you have read it, it doesn't seem that you've yet acted on it. (For an example, please see the top right of Talk:Stephan Vanfleteren for how this indicates that the article Stephan Vanfleteren started as a translation of the article fr:Stephan Vanfleteren.) Also, please respond to my comment of 23:17, 22 July 2022. Note that every Japanese-language book used for the article Teikō Shiotani is given its Japanese-language title (plus the alternative English-language title, if it has one, or otherwise a translation into English), and its ISBN if it has one and an OCLC number if it does not: you should provide analogous information for your Korean-language sources. -- Hoary (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hoary, thanks for your reply and guidelines. I've edited some details you've mentioned a week ago - but I didn't get the results. Was it accepted or not? Please check out and let me know the next steps. Tpg.2022 (talk) 08:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tpg.2022, (i) for "Museum collections", we're told: National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art Gwacheon, Busan Museum of Art, Seoul Museum of Art, Gwangju Museum of Art, Daegu Art Museum, Daejeon Museum of Art, Walkerhill Art Center, Leeum, Samsung Museum of Art, Hongik Museum of Art, Total Museum, Tokyo Metropolitan Art Museum (Japan), Mie Prefectural Art Museum, Shimonoseki City Art Museum. A reference for each of these, please. (ii) Dansaekhwa: Korean Monochrome Painting and Reduction and Spread of Contemporary Art: the ORIGIN Painting Association 1962-2006: An ISBN for each, if it has one. If not, then an OCLC number, please. (iii) Please announce that this is (or anyway was) a translation. -- Hoary (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hoary. I've edited the references and followed your guideline. Please check out. Tpg.2022 (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tpg.2022, the "Life" section has no references. The "Early in career" section: no references. The "Fingerprint and roller period" section: A reference is provided for each of two block quotations, but for nothing else. And so on. -- Hoary (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hoary, I've now seen your further communication of 6 September 2022. I took very seriously your concern with reliable sources and citations which you voiced on June 20. During the last several months I have carefully reviewed the text, made some revisions and additions, consulted with other knowledgeable people, and added many more reliable, verifiable sources and citations. If you look at my View History page you will see entries from June 30 to August 18. Many of these entries updated sources or provided more easily accessed citations that are found on the web or in major publications such as the New York Times. I tried to diligently support each fact with a reliable source.

I also see the notice concerning Neutral Point of View. In my revisions I also tried to address this concern by adding well referenced direct quotations and restatements available in major publications by significant members of the art establishment. As suggested, I'd be happy to discuss this further on the talk page and to point out how some early unsupported claims are now reinforced by a reference or publication citation.

I do understand and support Wikipedia's content policies. I would now like to ensure that this current draft is resubmitted and will be reevaluated by you and other reviewers.

Thank you for your consideration. IBalancedAll (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand,

Draft talk:Jonathan Green (photographer). -- Hoary (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It looks like a lot of this was copy-pasted from her website again so I'm marking it for CSD G12. https://counterspace-studio.com/about/ AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 13:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "our" is just a lost-in-translation moment. That IP is notorious for making very poor translations from sr.wiki. Curbon7 (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Curbon7. Or the result, its accuracy aside, is just feeble. Here's the example I've encountered most recently. -- Hoary (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and your critical comments. - I have added a wealth of new references, many from the academic field or that of German administration: - Note: The "Thieme - Becker" is the most important encyclopaedia of artists ever for the art of the German-speaking world and is the academic standard. The "[Allgemeine] Deutsche Biographie" is the most important biographical source for persons of the 19th century in Germany. Stilmythos (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stilmythos, I do hope that you succeed with this draft; but I have to say that its prospects still look bleak to me. Anyway, I've responded/elaborated on the draft. ¶ A minor point: Although in the Wikipedias of many languages references are flagged before commas and the like^[1], in English-language Wikipedia they're flagged after punctuation.^[2] If you argue that this is illogical, I agree with you, but it's the established convention. -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the relevant passages that you criticised ("address book Düsseldorf"); at the same time, I would like to take the opportunity to invite you to look at the subject of "Emma Elwin" from a different point of view.

Germany is an important cultural area in Europe in terms of paintings. As far as German art history is concerned, the Düsseldorf School of Painting is by far the most important school of 19th century painting in Germany. This is not only because it occupies a high position within German art history, but also because it produced a large number of non-German artists who received their training in Düsseldorf and then carried the know-how they acquired here back home (Karl Gabriel Adelsköld, George Caleb Bingham, Ernest Crofts, James McDougal Hart, Imogene Robinson Morrell, Georg Anton Rasmussen, Helen Searle, Oscar Törnå, Richard Caton Woodville - to name but a few).

Karl Ferdinand Sohn is now one of the most important portrait painters of the school and a "heavyweight" within the German art painters. He did not get this rating from posterity, but was already an authority and highly respected during his lifetime. One did not enter the circle of this man's students so easily. One had to have outstanding and extraordinary abilities to establish oneself in this environment. To claim otherwise would be like seriously daring to assume that John Singer Sargent would have allowed any philistines in his environment, or, to use comparisons from other fields, Isambard Kingdom Brunel would have turned a blind eye and allowed mediocre engineers on his staff, or Paul Bocuse a sous chef from a takeaway. - Being a student of such a man makes a person "notable". You don't need the expertise of a Harvard professor to do that.

That Sohn was someone who specifically promoted women at such an early stage makes the matter particularly interesting: all the identifiable women who received this promotion deserve a Wikipedia entry. Representation in the world's great museums is rather secondary, and the English-language Wikipedia has so far followed suit in the field of art; I'll give you just one example of this: Zofia Atteslander was a good portrait painter, but she is not represented in any important museum anywhere in the world today. She is, however, listed in the English Wikipedia, probably not least because she was the student of Franz von Lenbach and Adolf Hölzel, two giants of art.

Emma Elwin's biography also gives her an even clearer connection to the English-speaking world, which also argues for her inclusion in the English Wikipedia. The fact that attention was only focused on her relatively late had to do with the fact that the identity of the Sohn student Emma Neussel with Emma Elwin, who could not be further assigned for a long time, was recognised late by researchers. An English-language Wikipedia article could enlighten a broader interested public about this and help to better classify images of an "Emma Elwin" that appear in the future.

As I said - just food for thought. I believe that one or the other aspect is comprehensible. Stilmythos (talk) 11:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken note of the comment about the German Wikipedia. I have documented in a footnote that I have taken well-researched sources from the German Wikipedia without quoting the Wikipedia article itself. Stilmythos (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stilmythos, I quote: This article takes over some references from the well-researched German Wikipedia page on Adolf Henning (5 October 2022). Did you check that the references for the de:Wikipedia article actually exist and that they say what the article implies that they say? If so, feel free to cite them; there is no need for the comment above. If not, don't cite them; and then of course there is no need for the comment above. ¶ I cannot speak for German, but in English ibid. (or ibidem) is not used for physical locations. ¶ "Museums with works by Adolf Henning (selection)" needs evidence for each museum. -- Hoary (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Talkcasting (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jared Becker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I saw your comment on the draft. Could you take another look and offer advice to help get published? Your comment says. "I don't notice substantive material about him or his work. There just seem to be interviews, mentions, and other flimsy material" My question is, for a person who has many interviews and articles published about him, why would that not count as substantive material to be published? His IMDb shows the large movies that he has coming out. (Steven Spielberg's The Fabelman's, Reveille, and the trade articles have announced his newest film.)

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Talkcasting (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talkcasting, on interviews, please see Wikipedia:Interviews. On IMDb, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#IMDb. If he appears in "large movies" that will soon come out, then I imagine that among the usual PR fluff (interviews, etc), there should be some intelligent reviews of these movies, including reviews that will describe or even discuss his contributions. So the solution seems simple: wait till these movies have been released (or at least shown in film festivals) and been written up, and summarize what will then be written. -- Hoary (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was not until I saw what you cut from the article that I realized I bought one of these drinks for my boy last Saturday, and we struggled to open it, haha. What a strange coincidence. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, ramune is something that only very seldom impinges on my consciousness; but oddly a thought train of some kind led me to it only minutes before I saw "this". Actually I'm only accustomed to it either written ラムネ or spoken, so at first I had no idea what the kerfuffle was about. Well, hmm ... I hope that you both appreciate the flavour more than I do! -- Hoary (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haha thanks--it wasn't totally disgusting, and that's all I'll say, but I don't really drink soft drinks. Take care, Drmies (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hoary, if I may I'm bringing this directly to you rather than making a ruckus at ANI, as you already made a comment on this issue. I think it's time to finally hard-prevent Realfakebezalbob from adding unsourced material to aquaristics article, principally List of freshwater aquarium fish species. Over the last two month, I have had to revert no fewer than five instances [12][13][14][15][16], each followed up with lengthy discussions on the article talk page and their talk page, and multiple formal warnings. Today I noticed they'd done it again last week [17], contending that "it's all sourced in the species articles".

After repeated explanations of onus and sourcing requirements, and that

]

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Hoary! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright and health claim problems.

Hi, I'm hoping you can help. Article Stock (food) Probonebroth has inserted copyright material from https://probonebroth.com/35-benefits-of-bone-broth/ which also contains a lot of health claims. The editor has twice tried inserting copyright material and adding links to the blog. Another admin did show me partly how report copyright but I really don't have confidence to do it correctly. Sorry to dump this on you. Can you help? Knitsey (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me, Knitsey. I see that The Blade of the Northern Lights has already done what I would have done had I seen your message a little earlier. -- Hoary (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking Hoary. Much appreciated, Knitsey (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hoary,

Thanks for the input on the question I posted in the teahouse. The question was archived before I was able to respond to your response. Here are the media sources I've found so far:

https://99percentinvisible.org/article/bagged-tagged-introductory-field-guide-plastic-bread-clips/

https://www.theliftedbrow.com/liftedbrow/toward-a-taxonomy-of-the-plasticae-meeting-the

https://www.gawker.com/culture/occlupanids-plastic-bread-clips-tags-tabs-parasites-horg-reddit

And additionally, here's the article in the medical journal (just to reiterate what I mentioned in my original post, there is a photo taken mid operation that is quite graphic):

https://westernpathologyinc.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/2011-Plastic-bag-clip-discovered-in-partial-colectomy-accompanying-proposal-for-phylogenic-plastic-bag-clip-classification-Bruce-Ragsdale-MD.pdf

Let me know if this strikes you as a hard no. Otherwise I think I'd err on the side of notability, and I'd like to get started!

Thanks again. A username can have spaces? (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding and answering, Certainlynot [sorry, but you're asking for it]. In brief: the 99percentinvisible.org page isn't so impressive, but I think it's usable; the (the) theliftedbrow.com page looks eminently citable; the gawker.com page, no; the BMJ Case Reports article, definitely citeable, although you should (i) remember that it's merely a case report (and thus probably just one of a huge number), and (ii) avoid providing that link to it until you're certain that its availability from there doesn't violate the authors' or publisher's copyright. (Remember that web availability, though appreciated, is not required. The article itself tells the reader how it should be cited -- not that you need to follow every detail of this.) I'd be (disinterestedly!) interested in a draft you might make, and rather hope that you'll go ahead. -- Hoary (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Homer Sykes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colin McInnes.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy me! -- Hoary (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting in some practice at referencing and wondered of this [18] would be a suitable reference for this article Lamy, New Mexico? Thanks in advance, Knitsey (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Knitsey, all it seems to say is "He lives in Lamy, New Mexico." That's a modest assertion, so I suppose that an unsigned source would normally be OK. But the source is undated (as well as unsigned): it's imaginable that it dates from over ten years ago. Whenever it was, Stevens could have moved away since then. How about saying that Stevens has lived in Lamy (not that he lives there)? -- Hoary (talk) 12:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to get away with saying I knew about the date. But I didn't. I'm a numpty lol. Yeah that sounds good. Thank you for checking, I will keep that in mind next time I'm searchung for refs. Knitsey (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The Bestagon, a non-breaking space can be produced by an ampersand, then "nbsp", then a semicolon (&nbsp;). Happy editing! -- Hoary (talk) 12:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hoary

Thanks for helping with this draft. I have added a few references which I hope fixes the unreferenced sections. But there is a new issue. I added a photo to Wikimedia Commons from flickr. But it has been listed for deletion because a known photographer took the photo. I believe the photographer has released his rights and have said so on the photos talk page and asking how to confirm this for Wikimedia Commons but no-one has replied yet. I am not sure whether to resubmit the draft, remove the photo and resubmit or what. I am also not sure whether I should even be asking this! It's all a little confusing for newcomers. Thanks. FrancesLey (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FrancesLey, you're asking about commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Torus sculpture.jpg. It's about a photograph of a 3D artwork by David Harber. I'm rather sleepy and a bit pressed for time, so I'm not going to take the trouble to confirm that I'm right in saying from often-defective memory that both the original artist and the photographer have copyright claims to a photograph of a 3D artwork. Anyway, please see my response there to one of your questions, and my comment.

The presence or absence of photos in a draft shouldn't affect the chances of the draft's promotion to article status.

A small point, but in en:Wikipedia (unlike, say, fr:Wikipedia):

. . . was his ancestor^[5].

(etc) should instead be:

. . . was his ancestor.^[5]

(etc).

You seem to know certain things about Harber and his work that I wouldn't expect somebody not connected to know. Are you perhaps a friend or an employee of Harber's? -- Hoary (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't enough information about Harber's personal life online so I rung the company who were happy to oblige when I told them why. But it turned out to be a bit of a waste of time because I have removed most of it because it can't be sourced online.

Thanks for other help. I will change the footnote spacing. FrancesLey (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]