User talk:Boleyn/Archive 13

Mary Arundell (courtier) - how reliable is the old DNB content?
Hi, Boleyn: I wonder whether information in the old DNB is worth adding to WP without very careful checking, or comparison with the current ODNB? The old DNB seemed to include (a) outdated ideas about her literary accomplishments and (b) death date confusing her with another person! The titles of her husbands being redlinked looked odd, so I chased them up, and kept on chasing as it got worse and worse (Sussex for Essex, Newlyn for Xewlyn - turned out to be the wrong woman anyway - etc.) There needs to be a big health warning on anything from DNB, perhaps? Anyway, I've had enough of Arundells - I seem to have spent an hour and a half on that little lot! PamD (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I wondered what the problem was with her husbands, I couldn't find the answer. I think, on the whole, adding from the DNB on its own is worthwhile, few of them are as bad as you found this one. However, it might be worth adding some kind of tag warning that some of the info may be outdated, but I don't know any that would be appropriate. Any ideas? Boleyn (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Automation of edit comments?
"1 blue link per line on disambiguation pages, see MOS:DAB" How many hundred times do you think you have typed that? ;-) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's automated! I type in 1 and the sentence comes up. I'd type it several times a day otherwise. Good to hear from you, Boleyn (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't that sensible of you! How did you automate it? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could claim credit, but it seems to be on my computer settings somewhere, but I don't know where, I can't get it to work on my laptop. It comes up with predictive sentences everyone I type on a website. Hope you figure out how to do it one yours, it certainly does save time. Boleyn (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. (I hope I can figure out how to do it, too.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Succession boxes - new parameters "before2" etc
Hi, I don't know whether you watch BHG's talk page (eg User_talk:BrownHairedGirl, which is where I found out about this), but you might or might not know that there are now parameters "before2" to 5 and "after2" to 5. Will make life easier in multi-seat MP articles. Sorry if you know already, but I thought you'd find it useful if you didn't. It always seemed odd to have to use  for these in amongst a sophisticated set of templates! PamD (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me informed, I hadn't heard of it. Boleyn (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Dispute on Margaret Pole, 8th Countess of Salisbury
Hi, Looking at the history of Margaret Pole, 8th Countess of Salisbury it appears you were involved in a dispute about the accuracy or neutrality of the article back in June. I'm working my way through the Somerset wikiproject cleanup listing where the article appears because of the banners. Do you feel the dispute is resolved? If so can the banners be removed? I have tried to start a discussion on this on the Talk page and your contribution would be helpful.&mdash; Rod talk 09:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I just changed a link, but I've had a look at it now, and I wouldn't dispute the tags. Unfortunately, the main source for this article is detailed but has clear pov issues. I've responded at the article's talk page and edited the article. Thanks for your message, Boleyn (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Waterhouse
Howdy (again)! A favour please. Can you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waterhouse&curid=873145&action=history and advise if I've given in too quickly, or if I should have "stuck to my guns"? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Umm, I think I'd have done exactly what you did. I was surprised that MOS:DAB said nothing about duplication. It can definitely cause confusion and entries will usually only be added to one or other of the dabs. However, if I was looking for all people with that surname, I'd rather they were all listed on the one page than have to click on dab links, so perhaps it is more user-friendly in a way. I probably wouldn't edit war over it, the compromise seems OK, although I don't like it. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any clear guidelines on surname pages, it even seems unclear if they are dabs or articles. If I was you, I'd post this question on the Wikiproject and see what others think - it may well be worth adding to MOS:DAB about dabs which duplicate, especially as so many have sprung up which are Sam Jones, Sam S. Jones, Sam S.R. Jones, Sam Jones (born 1989), Sam Jones (American football) - I can't remember what name it was that someone helpfully created dabs just like these, with some belonging on 3 different dabs. The policy should be clear. It would also be good to have clear guidelines on pages which are surnames or given names only, MOS:DAB says it doesn't apply to them, but what does? If you start a discussion there, I'd certainly add my opinion. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that's reassuring! Thanks!!
 * And you also mention some issues I hadn't thought of, with which I agree. Thanks again.
 * I'd rather they were all listed on the one page than have to click on dab links - On reflection, yeah, me too. Good idea.
 * What do you think of the idea of the lower level dab pages redirecting back to the main page? Or perhaps even to an h3/h4/h5 on the main page? That would avoid the duplication problem(s). But as you state and/or imply, it ain't in MOSDAB, and would require some political canvasing ...
 * Yes, I don't like it much either, but I hadn't thought of your more elegant solution at the time ...
 * Unfortunately, ...  - Yes, I agree, it is unfortunate.
 * If I was you ...  - a) I'm fairly confident you wouldn't want to be me. b) Hmmm. Good idea. Thanks. I agree.
 * If you start a discussion there ...  - Thank you! It being Summer here, I'm about to spend the next week doing as little as I can get away with whilst walking along the beach, swimming in the Southern Ocean, and/or eating delicious seafood. (And sleeping.) I'll give it a go after New Year, and will drop you a note when I do.
 * In the interim, Merry Xmas, and best wishes for a happy, healthy and prosperous 2011, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Now you've made me very jealous, I've pretty much been snowed in for two weeks and a walk to the shop now involves ice skating. Make the most of your good weather. I think a lot of people won't want to enter a big discussion at this time of year, but you've definitely raised issues that have needed to be addressed for a long time. Merry Christmas to you too! Boleyn (talk) 09:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

experiment
P.S. What do you think of: How long do you think it will be before someone complains? Ahhh! The freedom of abdication!! Pdfpdf (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waterhouse&action=historysubmit&diff=401606530&oldid=401606042
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Waterhouse_%28disambiguation%29&action=historysubmit&diff=401606352&oldid=256259992
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Waterhouse&action=historysubmit&diff=401606307&oldid=401457589
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Waterhouse_%28disambiguation%29&action=historysubmit&diff=401606631&oldid=256260007
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Waterhouse&action=historysubmit&diff=401606591&oldid=335650899

So you're a vandal! I think they're probably more user friendly, but as an editor I don't like them - although that isn't particularly relevant. It's certainly worth discussing; I think the problem may be that most people who edit surname pages are dabbers and thinking from that viewpoint or are occasional editors of surname pages - I can't think of anyone who's made it their speciality and thus writing guidelines could be difficult. However, some of the regular editors at the Wikiproject and MOS:DABCU are good at the technical stuff and so may take it on as a project. The problem I can think of with your way of doing it is if there are only two or three entries, the surname page could be overwhelmed with subsections (not to mention that it would be a huge amount of work). It's an interesting idea. Boleyn (talk) 09:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * So you're a vandal! - C'mon. 'fess up. You always had your suspicions, didn't you! ;-)
 * No, I still don't like them either. Can you think of anything more palatable?
 * The problem I can think of ..  - Yeah, I had similar thoughts.
 * Where's that shop selling silver bullets when you need it!
 * Well, I'm of to the beach tomorrow morning. Merry Xmas! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Can't think of anything better, I'm afraid. Enjoy the beach, Boleyn (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Bill Johnson
Hi. Thanks very much for sorting out my fumblings at Bill Johnson. I had a feeling that what I was doing wasn't quite right and would need sorting out, but I wanted to do something because there was an odd situation with links coming to the page and then still not finding the right actor of the two (or more!) Bills. I just wanted to check a couple of things with you please. (1) if it's "only one blue link per line" then shouldn't we lose one of the films, or at least one of the links, for the Bill Johnson I just added? (2) what was your objection to the "which Bill it is on IMDB" bits I added? I hoped they might be helpful in disambiguating the Bills, especially since the second one has no article. Please note that it's not like I'm so committed to this idea that I'd start a fist fight over it ... I'm just interested in the principles involved. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You did the right thing, it's best to add so people can get the info and leave the style issues if you're unsure about them. As for 1 blue link per line, that really only applies if the blue link in question goes to an article on that Bill Johnson; if he has no article, then 2 links in his description is OK. Regarding the numbers, it could be seen as advertising for another site (IMDB). We don't add any links to other websites on disambiguation pages, just where they can find info on the person on WP, like a WP index. Unless you were at IMDB, I din't think the number distinctions would help. I left them there bracketed out in case someone wanted to create an article on them, then they might be helpful. I hope that explains it. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's very clear, thanks very much for the helpful reply. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John Imison


A tag has been placed on John Imison requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. GSorby Desroid  - (Contribs!) 18:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the article's pretty clear on his achievements. It's referenced, he has an article in the DNB, and if he's notable enough for them, he's notable enough for Wikipedia. Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he is notable and stuff but you didn't really cite enough sources. If you had around 3 references, it should be fine :) -- GSorby Desroid  - (Contribs!) 18:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple of points - no speedy tag has been added, and if one is I shall remove it, DNB is a reliable source and a reliable indicator of natability. DuncanHill (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, as long as the website is popular and reliable, that should also, be fine. -- GSorby Desroid  - (Contribs!) 18:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need to have more than one source to be valid. Many, many articles from before the 20th century have only one source, they're often hard to find. It doesn't make them invalid, and certainly not a case for speedy deletion (especially as it had been created less than 5 mins before I got this message); a prod maybe if it was an unreliable source. Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hugh Jones (bishop)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Hugh Jones (bishop), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.hughjonesfolio.com.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't find anything on that website that duplicates it - what I added was taken word-for-word from the DNB at Wikisource. I'm glad the tag's now been removed. Boleyn (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed the tag - the bot seems to have been somewhat over sensitive! I've also let Coren (the bot operator) know. DuncanHill (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Duncan. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to Talk Page Stalk but I just wanted to comment that this is perhaps the most brilliant copyvio notification I have ever seen. When I (a) read the article, (b) read the site from which Boleyn clearly made a wildly unethical massive copy of all that content about Bishops of Llandaff and (c) contemplate the disclaimer "It is possible that the bot is confused" it gives me a warm glow of hilarity. No disrespect, honestly, is intended to anyone - it just made me smile, is all. DBaK (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, certainly was a weird one! Boleyn (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

MOS:DABCU listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MOS:DABCU. Since you had some involvement with the MOS:DABCU redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Boleyn (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Isaac Chauncy
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Isaac Chauncy, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/CX_ISAAC_CHAUNCY.HTM.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The website is about the similarly name Issac Chauncey, a naval officer. There is no information I can see there that in any way matches the article I've just created. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

James Altham
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of James Altham, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.stepneyrobarts.co.uk/133039.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Both this and the website have taken their information from the old DNB, which is on Wikisource and in the public domain. Boleyn (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

MOS:DAB
Noticed that you did plenty of work with dabs. Do you think that the line "...only enough descriptive information that the reader can distinguish between different people with the same name." and the list of examples at MOS:DAB contradict each other?Cptnono (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Just had a look at it, and I definitely think it's contradictory. In the given example, only the President needs any information next to his link; the others are clearly differentiated by their titles, I don't think anyone would make a mistake if there was no info next to their links. Even if their titles didn't give the game away, the information is too long, e.g. no need for mentioning Elizabeth I of England, there's more than enough info already. I also think that although the examples show you should give dates of birth and death, I only usually do so if they aren't already differentiated by title and info, which is rare. If I saw this, I would trim down the last three entries. Boleyn (talk) 08:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this something that should be brought up over there? I have always based any work off the examples and never even noticed that part of the text. I could see the merit in both ways of doing it so maybe the MoS needs to be adjusted. I would be curious to see if the examples were added without much discussion and people just weren't paying attention. I'll shoot you a heads up if I bring it up over there.Cptnono (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it probably should be brought up. I rarely look at MOS:DAB now I've been editing dabs so long, but that's caught me out a few times when there's been changes I hadn't noticed, so I'm not sure how it was added or if it's been there long. Boleyn (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I mentioned it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages).Cptnono (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Robert Anstruther (general)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Robert Anstruther (general), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.thepeerage.com/e148.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This info, like that at thepeerage.com, is taken from the old DNB, which is referenced here and in the public domain. Boleyn (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Richard Argentine
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Richard Argentine, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.mathematical.com/argentinerichard1162.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * yet another ludicrous mistake by the bot, have reported the false positive (as I have done with the others above). I have asked Coren if he can do something about this kind of "two word" match, but no response yet. DuncanHill (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that website has no information in common with the article! Hopefully it'll be sorted out. Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Gerbarus Fleccius
Added Cranmer's portrait based upon DNB article...then discovered Cranmer page links to Gerlach Flicke as the artist. Much of the write up for Flicke aligns with DNB details...perhaps a match... CUoD (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion please...
Another contributor routinely removes what I think are perfectly compliant disambiguation entries. Would you mind taking a lot at this instance?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 16:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Geo Swan. The guidelines are at MOS:DABMENTION, If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included. This seems to support your interpretation. However, in practice, most editors interpret this to mean a significant mention in the article. In this case, there's nothing really to find out about this David Irvine in the linked article. If it doesn't give any real information so may just frustrate the readers, it's quite common for editors to remove entries like these, although I wouldn't do it myself. It might be worth raising at the Wikiproject if you're finding conflicts are developing about this; unfortunately the guidelines aren't fully in line with what seems to be normal practice. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobleman/peer
I notice that you seem to have created a few articles on the format "Joe Schmo, 1st Earl of Somewhere, (d. 1150) was an English peer and member of the House of Lords." The problem here is that the English parliament did not begin to convene on a regular basis until 1295, and the separation into a House of Lords and a House of Commons did not happen until the 1340s. As such there was no House of Lords before this time. The word "peer" is also misleading, since this denotes a parliamentary peerage, which was not established until the 1320s. The word "nobleman" is a much more accurate term.

Hopefully we can fix this, but is there any way you can tell me how many articles we're talking about, and which? Merry Christmas! Lampman (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not sure. I've created a few thousand articles now, but only a small fraction were like this and were mainly created around the same time, a few months back. You could look under my contributions at the articles I created around the time of whichever one you found. However, a very small proportion of them would be pre-14th century. Sorry if I've caused any problems. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Peter Eyre (disambiguation)


The article Peter Eyre (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Only one other use - cricketer has been linked to on actor's article

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Logan Talk Contributions 02:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, dab only has 2 entries now. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

your quick removal of David A.D. Evans on Dec 13 2010
hello "Boleyn" I'm not a regular Wikipedia contributor, but I thought that I have a right to be represented on the page with my name, since my own "other" profession is equivalent to people listed on that page. I noticed that you removed my entry a mere 34 minutes after I entered it. I thought that my entry was fairly harmless. Not that I am particularly famous, or seeking fame, but since I'm no less important than the other science professors on the "David Evans" page, I don't think it's fair of you to delete my entry with such little hesitation. Take a moment to look me up if you don't believe me, with a simple Google search with my name and Yale Geology. I have authored more than 50 geoscience papers in the peer-reviewed literature. Since you seem to have lasting power of authorship and credibility over Wikipedia, I request that you reinstate my humble entry. 99.171.94.238 (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Helo, David. The page you added your name to is a disambiguation page - essentially an index of articles on Wikipedia. People without articles aren't added unless they have a significant mention in another article; I put a link to the guidelines (MOS:DABRL) in my edit summary. If you look at the guidelines at WP:PROF, you may well find that you meet the criteria for an article. We wouldn't usually encourage you to create an article on yourself, but you or someone you know can do so, as long as it meets the usual criteria. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks from David Evans
aaahhhh. I understand more of the rules now. Thanks for setting me straight, and for helping out with Wikipedia! (Rather than coerce one of my friends into writing a page about me, I'll just keep doing my science and let the chips fall where they may. 99.62.83.119 (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Charles Austin (lawyer)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Charles Austin (lawyer), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.historyhome.co.uk/people/austin.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Both this and the other website are using info from the old DNB, now in the public domain. Boleyn (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) Just wanted to let you know that per Plagiarism the ODNB template you used on the article is not sufficient when content is actually duplicated, as it doesn't explicitly acknowledge that duplication. Rather than Cite DNB (or in addition to), the template for copying from the DNB is simply DNB. I'll go ahead and add the template here. If you copy from PD sources, please be sure to acknowledge on the article's face that content is copied. There's a whole host of templates to help out at Category:Attribution templates. Thanks! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll use that. Boleyn (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

A handy template
I thought I'd drop by and ask if you were familiar with For example 1717 does the birth and death year categories and defaultsort all at once. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't seen that before. Boleyn (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's great, I use it all the time while stub-sorting. Good to give an article two categories and a sortkey in such a few keystrokes! Can also leave dates empty, or add "unknown" for a death date - leaving it empty generates the "Living people" category. PamD (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Peter Atkinson (disambiguation)
While your disambiguation for Peter Atkinson (architect) is heading in a favorable direction, the use of both dates and description is redundant. In this case, as both were architects, the dates uniquely distinguish these individuals and should be used...which simplifies the links for supporting pages. The architect description could immediately follow the link on the disambiguation page. Probably better to rename the articles prior to mass viewing...rather than condition new viewers with two disambiguating terms in a title... a mixed signal... Good luck...CUoD (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Nathaniel Bacon (painter, fl. 1640), I would add this one as well... CUoD (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree: dates are only used in extremis, here to add a second level to disambiguate two PAs who are both architects. To put either or both of them at a plain date would be unhelpful, and not usefully distinguish them from the other PAs. I don't believe there is any consensus to support this change in WP:NCP (note that the two articles referred to have both been renamed, so the example is invalid!), but haven't time this moment to pursue further. PamD (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * See Avoiding excessively long links found at the bottom in the last paragraph of this section. The examples throughout the section use dates or descriptive nouns (not both), so to be consistent with your naming convention stick with the latter which requires a little research in order to find the correct nouns...in this case the former studied as a "carpenter" for John Carr, an architect, and assumed his business as an architect and is remembered for a specific home that he built. The second Peter is (the younger) of the carpenter...who built a bridge or "bridgebuilder". This link will take you to a reference to the bridgebuilder . Using the dates usually takes less research...good luck and have fun...CUoD (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've raised a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(people). PamD (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

To me, it seems useful as no one would guess them from the dates alone, but I don't know in terms of policy. Boleyn (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Lewis Atterbury (lord mayor of London)
Title is a little misleading on this one...CUoD (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks, now corrected. Boleyn (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Glad to help, would like some feedback on previous topic when able, my responses were first impressions...CUoD (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Father Benet pg.
Many of the personalities found in the DNB were referred to by many names. The article Father Benet is a redirect to the name under which the entire biography was written. See Benedict Canfield (DNB00). CUoD (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I've changed Father Benet on here to redirect to the older and longer article. Boleyn (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Nathan Branwhite
An article that you have been involved in editing, Nathan Branwhite, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Aegoceras (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Just notifying you as I have now tagged the pages with Nathan Cooper Branwhite as the proposed destination - Aegoceras (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

George Baker (surgeon)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of George Baker (surgeon), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.sourcetext.com/sourcebook/Vere/Bios/baker.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Both take their info from the old DNB, which is in the public domain. Boleyn (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Philip de Braose (warrior)
A tag has been placed on Philip de Braose (warrior), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

The page now appears under Philip de Braose junior

Doug (at Wiki) 02:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to the redirect being deleted. Thanks for informing me. Boleyn (talk) 08:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of William Brinton


A tag has been placed on William Brinton requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Logan Talk Contributions 04:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The source article on Wikisource was only half there. I have dealt with the issues. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably shouldn't have put it on as it was, although I'd marked it as needing attention. Thanks for sorting it. Boleyn (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Charles III
I put back the other person on the dab page Charles III because he is referred to by that name on multiple Wikipedia pages as well as on a bunch of pages on a quick Google search. I don't know much about this person, but the title appears to be common enough for him to warrant a link. I think the link would be helpful to people like me who see him referred to as Charles III elsewhere and want to read about him but don't know what his real name is. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. It's probably a case of WP:IAR, but I just wanted it to get a check over for that reason and a couple of style issues, which have now been addressed. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Averell
Why did you put an expand template on Averell, a disambiguation page? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I put it on because there are several more entries to be added. Also it should really be developed into a proper surname page, rather than just a dab containing partial matches. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that would be more appropriate on a disambiguation page. Logan Talk Contributions 16:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Logan, I haven't see that one before, I'll bear it in mind. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, just for future reference, has been "deleted," but it hasn't been removed from all of the articles yet.  It shouldn't be used for future articles.  Happy editing! Logan Talk Contributions 18:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles created
How were you able to count the number of articles you created? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Richard. I went to WP:MOSTARTICLES. It gets updated every week or two. For me, it's more complicated as I created articles as Boleyn, Boleyn 2 and Boleyn 3, so have to add them together, but for you it'll be easier. I just checked and it's showing you at no. 82 on the list (which includes bots) with 2,488 articles created. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Who is this
I don't know her, I'm afraid, my knowledge of the Hanoverians is scant, Boleyn (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It says in the image's description that it's Princess Frederike Hanover.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeanne. I'm not sure if that article is for the right Frederike, because the photo says circa 1915 but the article has her born in the 1950s. It sounds like a common name. Boleyn (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose the link should be removed from the image. The writing on the picture says Princess Friederike Hanover, but as you rightly say, it was a fairly common name for German female royals.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I was able to work out who it was on my own, thanks. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Anthroponymy
I see that you are a serious editor. Have you considered joining the WikiProject Anthroponymy? Thanks to AlexNewArtBot I see that you've created a large number of new Names articles (I've been adding the APO banner to their talk) --Hutcher (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I have never joined a Wikiproject, but would certainly consider doing so in the future. At the moment, I'm just focusing on getting a large number of articles out there in a basic form, but when I get bored of that, I may well be more interested in getting involved with the details and the overall project. I appreciate your suggestion. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Your eyes are needed
There is a debate on Talk:Anne Boleyn regarding her title Marquess of Pembroke. Your input on the matter would be most useful. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I hadn't seen it. I think this debate will rage on forever, it's certainly been discussed enough times. Boleyn (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the perfectly succint Marquess of Pembroke has been replaced with the verbose and unwieldy Marquessate of Pembroke which leaves readers wanting her actual title-and this is a GA class article to boot.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have since restored 1st Marquess of Pembroke to the leading sentence where it belongs in this GA class article and per MOS. Thanks for your support. I hate to see disputes on this article which has been relatively stable for quite a while.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. We may well be wrong on this, I'm no expert on titles, but going against the form usually given by Tudor historians seems to be OR. Boleyn (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All books I've read on Anne Boleyn call her Marquess of Pembroke. She had to have had a title.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Max Mosley
Hi. There has been an argument over the article on Max Mosley, son of the 6th Baronet Mosley, over something so simple as whether if we should include the name of his parents in law, or father in law, and information on his own children. They even claim he's not nobility. It's a false question, but some people, from outside lineages' issues, insists in not adding them. The discussion was brought up by User:4u1e on User talk:Konakonian, Talk:Max Mosley and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. I'd thank you that you'd join with your good judgement. Konakonian (talk) at 195.245.149.70 (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I'm afraid I'm not sure where I stand on this issue, as I've very little experience on biographies of living people. I'll keep track of the discussion though. I hope it doesn't put you off editing - these disputes over minor things can really get out of hand, I hope it turns out OK. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

John Edwards (minister)
Hi Boleyn. Can you please at least wikify it? The tags were hideous.. It doesn't take more than a minute to wikify it and at least add English Christian ministers. I don't want what happened with BHG happening again that's all. I've done this one but please take some care over these... PLease don't just dump the text. I know they need starting but can you wikify the articles a little and add a category to each one? The problem is that nobody is going to clean up immediately afterwards if you don't... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  01:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't expect them to be improved immediately, just over time, and many of them have been improved within a very short period of time. The tags mean those that aren't improved straightaway will be got to eventually, and these people have been waiting 10 years for anything, so it seems better to me that they have an article, which is referenced and detailed but needs improving, than that they have nothing. Of course, I could create half as many, and they would all be further down the road towards being good articles, but I tend to get bored quickly doing that and then stop. If I'm just creating a basic, referenced article with a category or two that still needs wikifying, then I can keep motivated, it's just the way I've found that I can be most productive and enjoy it; though I see the benefits of working different ways, it just isn't for me. However, out of respect for how kind and helpful you've been to me in the past, I'll leave the DNB project for a bit as I don't want my work to cause problems. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

William Waterhouse
In a recent discussion I was referred to you as the expert on disambiguation. Being bold, user User:4meter4 moved William Waterhouse to William Waterhouse (bassoonist), and a DAB was installed instead. I was bold also, requesting that the former DAB St Matthew Passion was made the article St Matthew Passion. This was done after a long discussion. I see two differences between the cases: the discussion and the direction of the move. The first line of St Matthew Passion points at St Matthew Passion (disambiguation), for readers who are surprised by the move. In the other direction, like the case of William Waterhouse, the reader is confronted with a choice, in the example he expexts an article about a musician and gets the choice of a bassoonist and a violinist. Imo, the cleanest way would be to reinstall William Waterhouse and have the others as William Waterhouse (disambiguation). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (Talk page stalker) The difference here as I see it is that with the St Matthew Passion there is a clear primary topic. That is to say, most people thinking or saying or looking for "St Matthew Passion" will want the Bach. With William Waterhouse I don't see a clear primary topic - there isn't one who "jumps out" as the obvious primary topic. DuncanHill (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Gerda, I hope I can help. I agree with Duncan's message above, I Googled William Waterhouse with key words such as 'bassoon', 'violin', 'music' and 'mathematics' and didn't find a clear primary topic. I also had a look at page views and page watchers and didn't find anything to suggest a primary page either. When there's any doubt about which is primary, especially as there are several entries (4, plus 2 see also entries), putting the disambiguation page as the primary is usually the best course of action. For the bassoonist to be the primary, people would need to be looking for him far more often than the others put together, and I couldn't find that this was the case. Other people are better than me in this area of disambiguation, but I think it's best as it is now. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we are talking "primary topic" here and don't wan't to discuss this, but "leading" or "misleading". Could you at least install something on the DAB page saying : this was until ... the bassoonist.? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen anything like that on a dab, although there's always room for WP:IAR. I don't think it's misleading as it stands, as nationalities and DOBs are included and clear descriptions are given to differentiate between the entries. I also checked if there were incoming links aimed at the bassoonist, from other articles, which needed to be changed, but there weren't any. External links, such as the one you mentioned on 4meter4's page, are unfortunate, but the only problem would be that it would delay a user who had come from there by a few seconds, and as was said, I don't think we should base WP around these sites. You could tag it as {hndis-cleanup} and put this on the Talk page of the dab, to see what others think. I'm pretty sure, though, that the consensus would be to leave it exactly as it is. It's really common for dab pages to have been moved about and something else to have been at the primary page once, but doesn't seem to cause problems. Regarding a discussion before the move took place, I suppose in these cases there probably should be a discussion, but there usually isn't if the editor has checked for a primary and it seems clear (and uncontroversial) that there is no primary. You could initiate a move request on the pages and see what others think if you're still concerned. Boleyn (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no incoming links because 4meter4 changed most and I changed my userpage. The DYK archive is wrong now, and on Jerome Kohl's talk the DAB is a personal friend of Stockhausen - but I explained it there. I am surprised that in WP, taking so much care to preserve an article's history, such a change in an article's character seems to be common. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I confess to feel unencyclopedially unhappy with the move from a person to a thing (any person). The difference between the move of the Passion and the convert from a biography to a DAB is, that while in the move a redirect preserves the original destination, in the convert it is lost. Perhaps my English (second language) isn't up to expressing my concern? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Gerda, you say above "I don't think we are talking "primary topic" here and don't wan't to discuss this", but that's exactly the question. There are two possible scenarios:
 * The bassoonist (or someone else) is the primary topic and has an article called William Waterhouse. This has a hatnote directing to William Waterhouse (disambiguation), which starts off by saying "William Waterhouse was an English bassoonist. William Waterhouse can also refer to...". or
 * There is no primary topic, the disambiguation page is at William Waterhouse, and this links to all the people concerned. That's the current situation after 4meter4's page move.
 * Those are the only two scenarios. If someone comes in from a link to an old version of the Wikipedia page, they will now land on the disambiguation page, from which it will be obvious which of the links they should follow. If we allowed Wikipedia page move decisions to be influenced by incoming external links, we would fossilise old decisions. That isn't how it works. PamD (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Pam has explained it better than I can. Wikipedia must move and evolve, and the only 'problem' I can see resulting from this move is that someone would have 2 seconds where they needed to click on a link. 4meter4 has done all the right things, such as ascertaining if it is the primary page and dealing with incoming links. By the way, I think your English is excellent, I would love to be able to communicate in a second language as well as you - I didn't realise it was your second language and I think you've explained yourself clearly - I just don't think there's really a problem. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both for explaining! I like "Wikipedia must move and evolve" better than "Those are the only two scenarios". What do you think of the following "move": the name of a person is too precious to be just a DAB, I could imagine the William Waterhouse disambiguation under letter W of the Waterhouse page, all the WWs having a hatnote saying "for other people named William Waterhouse s. Waterhouse". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You're not the only one to think that's preferable, some people have suggested similar moves and made them, but they have invariably been reverted. I prefer the standard approach, partly because it's clearer. A dab lists all those named William, but you don't have entries such as Walter clogging it up. Also you may want to add Bill Waterhouse - if it doesn't explicitly say in his article that he is a William, then he would probably only be added under Waterhouse#B, and people would miss it. It could be the same for 'see also' entries, such as 'John William Waterhouse' or 'William Smith-Waterhouse' to use two fictitious examples. So you caould easily end up with irrelevant entries and missing entries. Also surname pages are not disambiguation pages (again, there are different opinions and MOS:DAB says that this is disputed. Ideally, a surname page is an article, with referenced information on the origin and meaning of the surname, with some notable examples listed. However, in practice, very few people are interested in working on surname pages, and they do tend to be just like disambiguation pages.

The idea of putting hatnotes on each article would remove potential confusion, but we don't tend to put hatnotes at the top of an article unless there's serious room for confusion. I think in the examples at William Waterhouse dab, they would come under WP:Hatnote because it is unlikely that someone would have typed in William Waterhouse (violinist) if they were looking for a bassoonist or a mathematician. They could make an error, of course, but they'd probably be able to fix that quite quickly by re-typing William Waterhouse. A dab would be clearer. I don't see the primary page as being too precious for a dab, perhaps because I'm used to them. On online encyclopedias such as the ODNB, I expect a dab to come up and for me to have to click - often when it goes directly to a page, it isn't actually who I was looking for, which causes me confusion. I'd prefer to find a dab, see that bit more information so I know I'm definitely at the right page, than read through the first paragraph or two and potentially read about the wrong person. Boleyn (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your detailed answer which I comprehend, I think. - People who read about some William Waterhouse and type that in the WP search function get three entries now, the DAB, the v and the b, not the m. Will they click b if they come to learn about a contributor to the New Grove? Or about the person for whom Wigmore Hall will have a memorial concert in which the living legend Gervase de Peyer is planning to appear? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I've now set up a redirect from William Waterhouse (mathematician) to William C. Waterhouse, so if someone types in 'William Waterhouse', it'll appear. Thanks for pointing that out, as entries with middle names/initials can easily be missed. I really don't know which they'd click on when it comes to your examples, are they different people? Boleyn (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the redirect. I don't quite understand your question about different people, I just said b for bassoonist and v for violinist, yes they are different people. I would have stopped arguing if we were talking about four brandnew pages of people with the same name. But I see a broken page history for William Waterhouse, which was a person's article for about 2 years (not by me) and now is a DAB. Take page statistics or just what people are used to see. - I am not surprised that WW doesn't show much in Google, because his prime time as a bassoonist were the 1950s and 1960s (the bassoonist in the premiere of the War Requiem conducted by the composer, for example). His time of writing "The Langwill Index" and "Bassoon" in the Yehudi Menuhin series was later, but doesn't show in "(bassoonist)". He has a middle initial R., but didn't use that as an artist nor as an author. Food for thought, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Quick and swift removal
Removing legit links from disambiguation pages twelve minutes after they were added can be a good thing, but perhaps you can take note when links are added by "established" users (i.e. non-bullshitters). Please revert yourself at Jan Jansen. Geschichte (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Geschicte. Disambiguation pages are edited very differently to articles, so many established editors make mistakes on them, and this was a mistake, as I explained in my edit summary, with, I think, a link to the relevant guidelines. An article should really be created and then a link added at the disambiguation page - dabs are really only meant to be an index of existing WP articles. However, if they meet MOS:DABRL, as two of these do, they just need the relevant blue link added, as I did on this page. If you're in the middle of creating these articles, then, of course, add the links when you've finished. May I also say that your message wasn't particularly civil? If we all sent messages for this kind of thing, nothing would get done on Wikipedia, we'd just have a bunch of people arguing all the time. Thanks for creating the page, I'm sure it will be useful, but it had several problems with it, which I addressed. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, but note that the swift removal also constitutes a form of WP:BITE (newcomers or not). I have now rushed to create four articles about Jan Jansens now, I believe it makes little difference whether the links are created right before or right afterwards. In the latter case, someone else would add a premature orphan tag, which would be equally unconstructive. By the way the phrase one bluelink per line means that "List of members of Stortinget 1985-1989" etc should be removed now, yes? And could you reinstate the entries now, please? Geschichte (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, they should now be removed as I see you've already done and that you've reinstated the entries. Well done for creating the articles. Creating links right before is the way I tend to do it too, although sometimes of course they are removed before I've finished. If you add an edit summary which says 'creating articles right now' or something like that, then it's unlikely anyone will revert. Unfortunately the vast majority of invalid links which are added to dabs (and there are 100s every day) are not an indication that the editor plans to create an article, but just a misunderstanding about what should be added to a disambiguation page. I never thought about swift removals being biting really, although I see where you're coming from. I monitor the changes to all disambiguation pages, and just check them from most recent onwards. Anyway, glad to see a good new dab and some good new articles from you. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

MOS/DABs
Thank, I hadn't known that, but it seems sensible in retrospect. Much appreciated! --j &#9883; e deckertalk to me 18:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no problem, thanks for your thanks! It's a common mistake, because adding extra links is very useful in articles. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible sock
I am not Grace Saunders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.10.171 (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. The reason that was added to your IP page is because someone from your IP address twice added 'User:Grace Saunders|Peter Anderson' to the Peter Anderson disambiguation page. Boleyn (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Gwladys - disambiguation
Hi, Thanks so much for picking up on the new disambiguation page! (Love, by the way, the image of the disambiguation queen).

Question for you: I tried looking up the clean-up information, but I'm not sure what needs to be done (still relatively new here at WP). Do you mind giving me a heads up why you tagged it for clean-up - and then I'll research that? Thanks!!! --CaroleHenson (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind message. I've cleaned it up now, it was only really a small thing, we don't tend to create disambiguation pages with 2 entries if one is already at the primary page, we use a direct hatnote on that page (see MOS:DAB). Sorry for not putting the reason for its tagging. I see you've been hard at work here since you started, so thanks, we need good new editors. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks! I don't know what direct hatnote/MOS:DAB means, but I'll check out the link you provided.  Thanks again!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, cool!! I read the info and then saw the update to Gwladys ferch Dafydd, and it's much more elegant. --CaroleHenson (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

barnstar
Thanks very much. My first barnstar! I'll cut it out and wear it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for mine too, and thanks for recognising the other editors too; as sometimes such a simple act can push others to do more. Diolch. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks! Your first, Samuel? Well it's long overdue. Boleyn (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks also for recognising my clumsy efforts. And I find myself in good company with the likes of Ser, Jev, Dunc and Fruit whose efforts I have particularly appreciated in other areas over the years. All the best Motmit (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
I just posted a message to User:AssociateAffiliate to make sure the Tim Walton articles didn't get moved to the wrong place by another user unaware of the existence of both individuals. Thank you for handling this. Bobo. 22:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. When I edited it the red link didn't meet MOS:DABRL, but when I saw who had added it, I left it, assuming it's someone who'll get an article soon. There should be less chance of confusion now the cricketers have been separated. Thanks again, Boleyn (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks for the barnstar, truly appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And thank you for mine as well - it's most kind. (Sorry - I've been at a choral rehearsal all afternoon, else I'd have responded sooner than this.) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar thanks
Hi Boleyn - thanks for the barnstar! I've moved it onto my userpage. Thanks again.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)