User talk:Hoary

If I've posted something on your talk page, please reply there rather than here. Any new question or comment at the bottom of the page, please. If you post something here, I'll reply here.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived 2 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 2.

Does this sound oddly familiar to you?

Wikipedia:Help_desk#Lupton_family Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why, yes, so it does! It reminds me of something just a few centimetres above it. And of other requests. And of other requests, And of [et cetera]. -- Hoary (talk) 11:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, it seems unending. -- Hoary (talk) 07:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that page like 2 min ago, it's on my watchlist. It's a sad situation, possibly because difficult circumstances, but we can but speculate. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical Turk scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 30 November 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by those who assist the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up on Draft:Benjamin Kanarek

Hello Hoary,

Thank you for reviewing the first version of the the first version of the Draft:Benjamin Kanarek a few weeks ago. I really appreciated your detailed feedback.

The draft was fully rewritten on September 3rd to address the specific points you mentioned — notably the name-dropping, redundant mentions, and the Cannes and Arles sections. Would you perhaps have a moment to take another look when you have time? Many thanks.

Kind regards, --VINCEVQ (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is better now, VINCEVQ. Just resubmit it; and then somebody who knows a lot more about the fashion biz than I do will consider it. (Meanwhile, a small point: what you write as ELLE is I think normally pronounced not "ee ell ell ee" but instead "ell"; if I'm right ere, then please write it as Elle -- regardless of the publisher's preference.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Hoary. I've corrected the "Elle" formatting as suggested and confirmed that the draft is already back in review.

If you think someone specific from AfC or the photography/fashion area might be best to review it, please let me know.

Much appreciated!

--VINCEVQ (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Urban realism

A while ago, I accepted the Articles for Creation draft Urban realism, which you had some comments on. Only now after Gnomingstuff noticed it did I realize that the sources in the text did not support the article at all and it must have been generated by an early large language model. I've since redirected it to Realism (art movement) for a reason I gave in summary but welcome your input there as well, if I was wrong the first time or the second time around looking at it. -- Reconrabbit 18:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reconrabbit, I'm sure you did right the second time. The first time was an understandable slip, later properly corrected. I've done much worse. ¶ Ah, LLMs. Well, perhaps each generation of Wikipedia produces its own genre(s) of Wiki-bilge. In my comment on "Draft:Urban realism", I mentioned the article "Urban Realism", deleted back in 2009. This (written by this person) shows (some of) us that at the time of deletion the article consisted of two paragraphs, a short list, and a single category link. Here's the first, longer paragraph: '''Urban Realism''' is the [[transcendental]] [[mediation]] between [[urban art]] and [[new realism]] which provokes the unified blend for [[urban sustainability]] and [[sustainable fashion|environmental fashion]] in [[post-industrial]] [[black america]] whenever [[neo-expressionism]] transmutes the [[transavantgarde]] spiritual invocation <small>([[face value]])</small> of [[Dadaism]] and [[Soul_(disambiguation)|soul]] '''dis-mis-con-'''[[figuration]] into [[pop art]]. Somebody who is really intent on using parody MFA-speak to create a hoax -- and no they shouldn't be, of course -- really should do a better job of it than this. -- Hoary (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

...I am fast approaching the same conclusion.

For safety reasons, I would re-block, but daren't, now that I've been reported to the authorities (fictitious as they may be). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Feel free to chip in, if you wish (I'd welcome that): User_talk:DoubleGrazing#User:TheArtandVintage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleGrazing, the discussion about the matter has spread (e.g. here), but I can't think of anything to add to it, anywhere (other than "seconded"). Attempts so far to set the editor straight don't seem to have done any good. WP:DE seems a fair description. -- Hoary (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Hiaeve Page Deletion

Hi Hoary! You had deleted my page Draft:Avi Hiaeve and I'm not sure why. I referenced G11, the code that you mentioned as unambiguous advertising or promotion. But this is a biography of a living person who is important in the NYC real estate scene, and I cited numerous reliable sources. Are you able to undo the deletion or advise how I would need to proceed to make this page acceptable? Thank you! QBlais (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) QBlais, do you seriously think a sentence like (one out of many, many) "He plans to transform the space into a two-level luxury boutique that is sure to reshape the face of Manhattan’s high-end watch and jewelry scene" is neutral writing? Worst of all, there's an actual quote from Hiaeve himself telling the world how great he is: "I was the best jeweler over there. People started to know me; I did good by people. And since day one, I tried to always be real with people." The whole draft is like that; I couldn't begin to tell you what to write instead, but not that. Some sources that are not mere vehicles for press releases and praiseful inteviews might help. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Do you have any relationship to Hiaeve, or have you been paid for writing your draft? Bishonen | tålk 14:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bishonen - thanks for sharing your perspective. I do not have a personal relationship to Avi Hiaeve, I am just interested in New York real estate and identified his biography as a topic that had not been covered on Wikipedia. I can certainly make revisions and look at some more sources to address these concerns. QBlais (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QBlais, I see plenty of promotional drafts that need a thoroughgoing revision before they have any hope of becoming articles, but it's very unusual to encounter something so flagrantly promotional that it calls for immediate deletion. Bishonen describes the deleted draft perfectly. I look forward to reading your responses to her questions. (Also, you may wish to respond to the problems of which Gbawden and I have notified you on c:User talk:QBlais -- although you should do so not on that talk page of yours, let alone here, but instead where advised, e.g. c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ring AENR 2382-5 3.jpg.) -- Hoary (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hoary, thanks for sharing your insights. I have responded to the problems that you and @Gbawden mentioned on my talk page. I cannot respond to the deletion request conversations anymore, but I reached out to Avi & Co. who holds the photo copyright and they consented to them being used. I am a new Wikipedia contributor so still figuring out how it all works. I let them know that they have to submit written permission and verbal is not enough, so hopefully they will send the email form soon. I will look to revise the page with the goal of more neutral wtiting. QBlais (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hoary, I did a big edit to the Draft:Avi & Co. page today. Are you able to review it and let me know if this is more aligned with neutral writing conventions on Wikipedia? I'm not seeing a place to re-submit it for review. QBlais (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops tagged it wrong! Draft:Avi_Hiaeve QBlais (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QBlais, at the top of the draft that you want to submit for review, use the "source" editor (not the "visual" editor) to add {{subst:submit}} -- Hoary (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you such much Hoary! QBlais (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to temporary accounts

Hello, Hoary. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

Editing from a temporary account

• When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
• All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
• A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
• As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
  • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
  • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

How to enable IP Reveal

• Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
• Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.

Impact for administrators

• It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
• It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
• Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

• Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
• Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
• See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

• It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
  • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
• Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
• Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
• The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

• How to use Special:IPContributions
• How automatic IP reveal works
• How to use IP Info
• How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

• For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User TheArtandVintage

Due to ongoing CoI concerns etc, I have now taken this matter to ANI: [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, Hoary. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Wiki-Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Anniversary Hoary 🎉

Hey @Hoary. Your wiki edit anniversary was 1 day ago, marking 21 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 04:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

for making me laugh. beautiful end to my evening. Aesurias (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Perhaps we did find ourselves in the gherkin season Thank you for the reminder. :) Dillard421♂♂ ^(talk to me) 03:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Need help, Issue after adding Template ForensicScience

Hi, I recently added the {{ForensicScience}} template to the top of the Dark web forensics article. After adding it, the entire article text became bold and the font style changed. I think something in the template or its placement is affecting the page’s formatting. Could you please help me fix this issue? I want to keep the template on the page, but without it breaking or changing the article's formatting. Thanks in advance for your help! Osmere (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve edited the page again and I was able to fix the formatting issue myself.

and I’m still new to Wikipedia, so sorry for the confusion earlier. Osmere (talk) 06:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on having fixed it so quickly, Osmere. Incidentally, I've put your mention of it above within "nowiki" tags, so that this (user talk) page doesn't also claim to be "Part of a series on Forensic science". -- Hoary (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

And thanks for adding the nowiki tags as well. Osmere (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m still new to editing, so this helps me understand things better. :) Osmere (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

my mistake I kept ForensicScience without enclosing it in "nowiki" tags Osmere (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Main page

Mechanical Turk is there now in Western Europe. As said if I were you I'd buy a box of Cohiba Robusto cigars and a bottle of single malt Glenfiddich and spend 24 hours on some coast. Then come back Monday and blind revert it all. Ceoil (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been out for much of the day, Ceoil, imbibing no such toxins; though I did treat myself to a tiny block of yōkan while waiting for a train. But yes, I think I'll largely ignore the article. Thank you for coming through with the Levitt check! -- Hoary (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear. Apologies again for the tardiness, but it was a pleasure working with you; I'm very impressed. Ceoil (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, during the article's second Big Day, numerous editors busied themselves with very minor matters. I have to concede that on balance their alterations trivially improved the article. The fixes I made a few minutes ago were similarly trivial, and few. So no complaints about wording. To my mind the discrete ingredient of the article that most needs attention is the presentation of El Ajedrecista as part of the "legacy" of the Turk. I don't see it as that at all. But it's so interesting in itself and I've invested too much time in the little paragraph devoted to it for me to be keen to delete the latter. I am surprised though that no other editor has yet got rid of it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you today for the article by several, introduced (in 2007!) as "on a bogus but still ingenious "automaton" that played chess: a device that concealed the fact that the chess was instead being played by a cooped-up human, thanks to magnets and candlelight. This is an article to which I have contributed nothing aside from liberal application of my fine-toothed comb, and therefore one that I can unashamedly praise."! - I hava a FAC open, also in the second round, about laughter for Cristmas, - what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to take a look at Unser Mund sei voll Lachens, BWV 110 tomorrow, Gerda Arendt. -- Hoary (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be nice, - sourcing was an issue, and I ran a peer review in between. - My story today is a Bach cantata, mentioned with the Christmas cantata, and the conductor of the video is mentioned by name in movement 1 of the Christmas cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt, how about this for the intro?

Extended content

Unser Mund sei voll Lachens ('May our mouth be full of laughter'),[1] BWV 110, is a church cantata by Johann Sebastian Bach. He composed the this Christmas cantata in Leipzig for Christmas Day and first performed it on 25 December 1725. When Bach wrote the music, he was in his third year as Thomaskantor, church music director of Leipzig. He used an earlier a text published in 1711 by Georg Christian Lehms, which has no pairs of recitative and arias, as (as were common in Baroque opera and contemporary Bach cantatas), but features in an older style has three biblical quotations alternating with arias: verses from Psalm 126, a verse from the Book of Jeremiah about God's greatness, and the angels' song from the Nativity according to the Gospel of Luke. The closing chorale is from Kaspar Füger's hymn "Wir Christenleut". Bach composed a work in seven movements and scored it festively for four vocal soloists, a four-part choir and a Baroque instrumental ensemble with trumpets and timpani, flutes and different kinds of oboes. The outer movements are given to the choir and the full orchestra ensemble while the inner movements are chamber music for solo voices and solo instruments. Bach derived the first chorus, in the style of a French overture, from the overture to his fourth Orchestral Suite orchestral suite, embedding vocal parts in its fast middle section, which make audible the laughter audible which is mentioned in the psalm verse. [No suggestions for the remainder of the intro.] References Dürr & Jones 2006, p. 97. sfn error: no target: CITEREFDürrJones2006 (help)

Of course, feel free to adopt whatever you fancy (if anything) and to ignore the rest. -- Hoary (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Gaetano Minale

Dear Sir Hoary, I don't know how you can say these aren't independent, reliable, and published sources. Instead, they're all documented and reliable, and the text reflects and complies with corrections made by other administrators. Please, if you intervene and block the draft every time and it's never the same, it's impossible to communicate. Please, I'll try to revise it, but all the demonstrations held abroad—there are so many and well-documented ones—should already mean a lot. Have a good day. Elanim (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Elanim. I've moved your comment to the foot of this page (where it belongs, as it's new) and reformatted its title. I'll look at Draft:Gaetano Minale afresh tomorrow. -- Hoary (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are very kind and I would thank you if you reread my draft tomorrow. All the sources are true and justified with the titles. I would like to point out that almost all of them are news from before the 2000s, that is, before the advent of the Internet. Elanim (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elanim:

• Promotional wording: The obviously promotional wording, which Drmies and Netherzone remarked on earlier, has gone. Good. But what's left seems self-promotional in its resemblance to a curriculum vitae in seeming eagerness to list anything that could be listed, regardless of its significance in an encyclopedia.
• Reference formatting: Back on 9 December, Drmies wrote "References are done poorly, if at all--bare URLs simply do not cut it." ("Bare URLs" and their drawbacks are described in Wikipedia:Bare URLs. "Do not cut it" is an idiom meaning 'are inadequate'.) On 13 December I commented "The formatting of the references is a mess. I have improved the formatting of one reference; now you improve the rest." I don't notice any improvement. Today I improved the formatting of a second reference; will this inspire you to do more?
• Trivial publications: On 13 December I also commented about what was in "Pubblications news papers and periodicals" (a title that I have since renamed) that "[i]f one of these articles says something significant, then summarize it and of course cite the article for the summary; if however it fails to say anything, then cut any mention of it". This doesn't seem to have had any effect.
• Obscure exhibitions and awards: The greater the number of somewhat obscure exhibitions and awards that are listed, the less convincing the resulting draft becomes. If an organization or event that held/holds an exhibition or gave/gives an award has an article in English-language Wikipedia, I suggest that you link it to that article. If it doesn't have one, but does have one in Italian- or other-language (French, etc) Wikipedia, I suggest that you use Template:Ill to link it to that/those article(s). If it has no article in any Wikipedia, I suggest that you cut any mention of the exhibition or award.
• Actual titles: If you're writing about, or citing, a publication with an Italian title and without an English title, then give the Italian title. (You're welcome to add an English translation of the title, but not in a way that suggests that this is the actual title. Template:Cite book and the other templates in that family make this easy.)
• Conflict of interest: The very first version of this draft was created by U:GAETANO MINALE. Revisions and augmentations since then have been by you, Elanim, which very obviously is "Minale" spelt backwards. Your list of contributions demonstrates that your sole interest in English-language Wikipedia is Gaetano Minale. Please read, digest, and act on Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide (particularly, Ethically, you need to disclose your conflict of interest. You have one if you are editing about yourself, or anyone you know personally. You can do so on your user page, or on the talk page of the article you have a conflict of interest with) and it:Wikipedia:Conflitto di interessi (whose content differs only slightly from that of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest).

-- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ms. Hoary, thank you very much for the many suggestions you suggested. I tried to eliminate some things and will try to do so again. As for the text, I will reduce it to a minimum, trying to make it less self-promotional. I will eliminate insignificant news titles. I have mentioned very few exhibitions, only those abroad. I will try to translate motivations or awards, etc., into English, even if it will be difficult for me. I will write the titles of the books I have done in English and improve everything before sending the new draft. It is true that I used the surname backwards and not Gaetano Minale because I have had unpleasant surprises in the past. I also used a profile expert, but Wikipedia blocked him because he does not accept payment. Now I am doing everything myself. I am inexperienced and thank you again for the suggestions. I hope, however, that when I send the draft again, it will not be another administrator who blocks it. Have a good day, see you later. Elanim (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, Hoary, I've made some corrections you suggested, and before resubmitting the draft, I'd ask you to take a look and let me know if I can, or make other corrections. My concern is that once resubmitted, it won't arrive. As always, another administrator will block it for other reasons; this has happened dozens of times already. I'm 87 years old, and I'd like to leave with this task accomplished. Thank you, and best regards. Elanim (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elanim, here's my earlier list:

• Promotional wording: Has been cut. (Not perfectly, but well enough.)
• Reference formatting: Still needs plenty of improvement. (I wonder if you understood my earlier comment.)
• Trivial publications: Still needs plenty of improvement.
• Obscure exhibitions and awards: Good, this has been improved.
• Actual titles: What appear to be Italian books are still described with English and not Italian titles. If you're referring to a book (or magazine, article, etc) with an Italian title (and not an English one), you must provide the Italian title (you are welcome to add to this your translation of this title into English).
• Conflict of interest: From what you write above, I infer that you are Gaetano Minale. Please say this directly in User:Elanim, for anyone who might be interested.

Good luck with the draft! -- Hoary (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hoary for the clarification. Elamin, I'm Gaetano Minale, 87 years old, forced to write things that are difficult for my age, and fortunately, with your suggestions, I can correct them. I'll make a few more corrections and send them, hoping this time I can get to the end... I'm tired... Best regards. Elanim (talk) 12:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir Hoary, as I expected, another new administrator took over and cancelled the draft today, and like everyone else, copied and pasted the same motif. How sad indeed! I thought the English Wikipedia was different. Thank you for your contribution. Elanim (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elanim, like the great majority of draft reviewers, Vestrian24Bio is not an administrator. (No matter, as whether a reviewer is or isn't an administrator has no effect on a review.) A draft may be "accepted" (promoted to article status), "declined" (very common), "rejected" (much rarer), or deleted (very rare); not "cancelled". Yours has been declined.

The draft I have most recently accepted (promoted) is now the article Lovett Auditorium. This is the state the draft was in immediately before I made minor changes to it and promoted it to an article. As you can see, the draft cites quite a lot of sources. But it has no list of items similar to your:

Abruzzo periodical La Voce, no. 4, April 1978, page 3, features an article in giramondo frentano about Minale's solo exhibition, his first guest at Galleria 46 in Lanciano, held from March 4 to 24, 1978. Title header, - With an exhibition for the inauguration, Minale is the first guest at Gallery 46 some quotes: Minale, a young artist originally from Molise who has long lived in Abruzzo; he is defined by many critics as "a Georgian and modern painter, he can be defined as a complete artist, rich in talent and temperament." Signed F.D.P.

Indeed, I have never seen a list of such items in any article.

The word "Georgian" has a wide variety of possible meanings, but let's put aside its ambiguity for a moment. Then a possible use of this piece from La Voce would be:

Minale was described in 1978 as "a Georgian and modern painter ... a complete artist, rich in talent and temperament".^[1]

References

1. F.D.P. (April 1978). "???". La Voce. No. 4. Abruzzo. p. 3.

-- although the title (of course the original, Italian-language title) would have to be specified. (I've used "???" to show where the title should go.)

Simply, you shouldn't provide a list of sources, saying what's in each. Instead, you should construct a narrative and for each part of this you should provide a source. -- Hoary (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, thank you for your reply. La Vove wrote the article in 1978 as his first guest at Galleria 46 in Lanciano. I've now attached the entire written page for you to read, in Italian of course. "Georgian painter," not Georgian, "Georgian" means a painter from another era, but modern. I can attach all the reference pages, and I will. What's sore is that they all use identical catchphrases, and no one specifies what is or isn't wrong. In short, you're the only one who gave me some pointers. I'll try to attach more information, but I already know how it ends. Thanks if you can help me further. Elanim (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No further comment, Elanim, until I have read and considered your reply to Netherzone's question. Be sure to make it candid and informative; and of course post it on your talk page, not here. -- Hoary (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse Reply

Howdy!

I ended up bein' away for a little bit and so my Teahouse thread got archived before I could reply to anyone, but the writer for the "scintillating" quote on the George Freeman article isn't named. That'd be because the author's name isn't in its original source (best I can guess is that they're called "Samson," but I don't wanna brush with WP:OR since I can't prove it), which is their website. This was actually somethin' I had to tangle with when I combed through the first time-- I went back n' forth a lot as to whether to remove the quote entirely, since it's hard to evaluate if somethin's an RS when there's no named author, but opted to let it stay because that person is also quoted in the Guardian article that's cited to that same line (I know the number of cites on that one were also asked about-- that's the explanation for 2 of 3 of them, without havin' evaluated the third at present.) I assumed that'd be okay if they were both there together, but I'm open to being corrected.

The reason that there's still no name even then is because the Guardian article basically uses the exact same line that's in the Wiki article-- also referrin' to the quote's author only as a "music writer."

It might not've been worth comin' here to discuss it, so I apologize if I'm just pestering ya, but since you asked and it's a bit of a weird situation, I thought it wouldn't hurt to elaborate.

Thanks so much for the reply! ~Judy _{(call it in!)} 04:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Janitor Judy, that all sounded curiously complex, but I thought that the clouds might lift if I just looked at "the Guardian article that's cited to that same line". However, I don't see any citation of The Guardian either in the article as presented for reading or in its "source". (Apropos of "source" as humans type it here, this is not HTML or XHTML -- it's instead Mediawiki -- and has no need of <p>paragraph tags</p>.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for procedural guidance re: post-AfC notability dispute

Hello [Hoary],

I’m reaching out to request guidance on how best to proceed with an ongoing notability discussion related to the article Terrell Groggins.

I am a COI/PAID editor and have been using talk pages and edit requests exclusively, per policy. I’ve provided multiple independent secondary sources for editor review, but discussion with one editor has become circular, with repeated dismissal of sources without clear direction on what would resolve the concern.

I want to ensure I’m following the correct dispute-resolution process and not inadvertently causing disruption. Could you advise whether this is best addressed through WP:3O, WP:DRN, or another venue, and whether my current approach aligns with policy expectations for COI editors?

Thank you for your time and guidance. VisualArchiveEditor (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VisualArchiveEditor, on the talk page, you say you're "requesting" (of course just an innocent typo for "making" or similar) an RfC. But you aren't. To make that request, you have to use Template:Rfc. It's all rather involved; and it's been so long since I last made an RfC that in order to understand the process fully I'd have to read up on it just as you would. (Indeed, I'm not certain I've ever made an RfC.) Which takes me to the question you ask above. First, read up on RfCs and decide if you want to make one. If you do, then revise your request so that it will function as an RfC. If on further reflection you don't, then briefly say so at the foot of that section. If there's a dispute over notability of an article subject, the best place to settle it is I think an "AFD"; but of course it's a notability-disputing editor who would start that off. -- Hoary (talk) 09:44, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification regarding the RfC process. You’re right — my earlier wording reflected intent to seek broader input rather than the formal initiation of an RfC via {{Rfc}}. After reviewing your comments, I’ve decided not to initiate an RfC at this time.

Given your subsequent remarks on the article talk page — particularly that World Press Photo, the Center for Creative Photography, and the Smithsonian Institution are respected, independent institutions, and that awards or institutional recognition from them are “an achievement and worth mentioning” — I wanted to ask a narrow procedural question.

In light of that assessment, do you think the current maintenance tags on the article (general notability under WP:GNG and the BLP sourcing caution notice) remain appropriate, or would it now be reasonable for those tags to be removed pending further editorial review?

I’m not seeking to escalate or reopen disputes, only to ensure that the article reflects consensus-based application of policy. I appreciate your guidance on this.

— VisualArchiveEditor (talk) VisualArchiveEditor (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing your comments, I’ve decided not to initiate an RfC at this time. Ironically, using the template started an RfC. I undid that. Polygnotus (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VisualArchiveEditor, I've removed the "notability" warning and have commented on the article's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Font

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archive 76#c-Hoary-20251217083600-~2025-40636-03-20251217070000

How did you do that font?

Erikgobrrr (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking about Template:Tq? -- Hoary (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you!

Erikgobrrr (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Template:Tq shouldn't be used just in order to change color or font. To change color, you can simply use any of a number of color terms (for example olive, with Template:Olive) -- although links within this won't be recolored. -- Hoary (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adolfo Farsari scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for February 11, 2026. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2026. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]