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, 22

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

March music

Of the four topics I helped to bring to the main page, I'm most proud of a woman's work, so made it my story. As it happens, last year's story OTD was about the woman. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

on Bach's birthday, a story about my joy --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for being such great admins for this site! (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 17:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sergey Khrabrykh

Hello. Could you please take a look at this draft? A publication detailing Sergei Khrabrykh's biography has been added. Thank you very much. ~2026-19982-02 (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The draft's history shows that the latest request for a review was made just six days ago. At the top of the draft, we read: Review waiting, please be patient. / This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,934 pending submissions waiting for review. -- Hoary (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Hoary a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! ☘︎☘︎☘︎ALEXHammeke (talk | guestbook | sandbox) 01:39, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Parameter template

FYI, instead of, say, <code>| website=ReverbNation</code>, you can write {{para|website|ReverbNation}}, which gives: |website=ReverbNation, using {{Para}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:32, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Andy. But ... so many templates; so little brain available for the task of memorizing. -- Hoary (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AfD - soft delete

Hi Hoary, a page I nominated for deletion closed as a soft PROD but I wasn't aware of this. The page has been nominated a second time but looks headed for a weak keep despite not having 2 pieces of sig cov. Am I still able to delete it or tag it for speedy deletion? (Something tells me that might be frowned upon.) Thanks, Mme Maigret (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A "soft PROD", Mme Maigret? But aren't all PRODs "soft"? ("Soft" doesn't appear within the page Wikipedia:Proposed deletion.) And how can you delete anything (however deletionworthy it might be)? Anyway, if an AfD is in progress, you'd better not attempt to bypass it, unless you have a particularly pressing reason for doing so (e.g. the sudden discovery that much of it is a copyright violation). However, I may well be missing something here: Of late I haven't paid much attention to XfD and am sure that I could count my PRODs on the fingers of one hand (if I could remember any of them, and I can't). -- Hoary (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Hoary I understand a bit more now. I AfD'd the article. It was deleted but treated as a soft delete or expired PROD because there was only one other person who commented (also recommending deletion). Someone subsequently asked for the article to be restored. It was immediately tagged for speedy deletion by another editor, the speedy deletion was reversed - apparently that's not allowed after a soft delete. So the tagger nominated it for a second AfD. It still doesn't meet GNG but looks likely to survive the second nom. Mme Maigret (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What's the article, Mme Maigret? -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's David Murphy (Irish writer). Mme Maigret (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I find the appropriate discussion page?

My section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#skip-to-bottom-anchor appears to have been archived. It says in the notice saying it was archived that advice has already been given. It says to make any further discussions on the appropriate discussion page. I'm all confused what they mean. People need to be able to break in and compete. Sometimes, they will have a highly successful strategy. They might get things working for now with it. But tomorrow is a mystery. Somebody might need to be able to break in and compete again. If something is archived, how are they supposed to do so? Blackbombchu (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking about this, which you started with Not one of the rest of us hasn't done all those complicated and advanced plans I can't follow giving me no part to play and starting to accumulate power. Those who know how to organzie it have something to look forward to 1000 years in advance and never give up and want to do their small part that looks at what's been getting attacked and guards it and not how we got there. This is only partly comprehensible. Your entire comment doesn't specify a single page of Wikipedia. Please interpret "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page" as shorthand for "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, if any". No Wikipedia discussion page would be appropriate. -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I finally sort of see it. Blackbombchu (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

You suddently flashed onto my watchlist. How are you? I don't think we've typed to each other for years. Tony (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PM sent, Tony! -- Hoary (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Francesco Chiacchio

Hi, I saw the rejected request on Francesco Chiacchio's draft page, I think he is encyclopedic as he has worked for La Repubblica, Internazionale and the New York Times, and is already present on the wiki in 5 languages. ~2026-26149-33 (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did not reject Draft:Francesco Chiacchio. I declined it. (And for this reason you have been able to submit it a second time.)

In order for there to be an article about Chiacchio, he must be notable as defined by and for Wikipedia. (Let's call this "notable-WP".) In order to be notable-WP, he must meet either the general notability guideline or notability (people). (Let's call these "GNG" and "N(P)" respectively.) In order to meet N(P), he must meet either the "basic criteria" (which is just GNG for people) or (as he is an illustrator/cartoonist) "additional criteria" for "creative professionals". (Let's call these "N(P)BC" and "N(P)CP" respectively.)

This is simpler than it looks. There are just two paths for an illustrator/cartoonist to be demonstrably notable-WP: There's GNG (also called N(P)BC), and there's N(P)CP.

Perhaps Chiacchio is notable. But the draft has to demonstrate this. In my view, the draft fails to demonstrate either GNG (= N(P)BC) or N(P)CP.

I hope that this has clarified what you have to do to the draft. You have already resubmitted it, but I don't intend to review it a second time (although I might comment on it). -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Userpage Shield
		Great shielding! By the way, hope you notice that the image in the barnstar is from your userpage! Welovecontributors! [talk] 03:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]