User talk:Boleyn/Archive 14

Sir John de Ashton
Hi, there. I came across your page about John_de_Ashton_(seneschal) and I wanted to ask you about something. The article states that "Ashton was the son of Sir John de Ashton and his wife, Margary Legh". Our family records have him as the grandson of Sir John de Ashton and Margary Legh. His father is listed as "Sir John de Ashton, drowned at Norham" and his mother as "d. of Sir Rob. Standish". I'm researching to try and verify our family records, so I'd be very interested to know of your source for that article: it may be that it is more reliable than ours, which is an extract from the James of Barrock Pedigree.

BTW, I found this page which agrees with my records, but I can't get hold of a copy of Burke's Landed Gentry to check if that's where this version of the family tree came from.

PS. Also noticed that the page on John de Ashton (military commander) confirms him as the father of Sir John de Ashton, drowned at Norham, not John_de_Ashton_(seneschal). Johnroashton (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I've just looked at the article. All the information I added was from the DNB article; there's a link to the DNB article in the references section of the WP article. The DNB is a good source, but not always the best, mainly because it's so old now. Your research sounds more reliable to me, although I'm afraid I know nothing about him, I was just working on the project transferring DNB articles onto Wikipedia. If you had the time, it sounds like you could greatly improve the article. Good luck in your research, it sounds really interesting. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thrush dab
You are right and I am wrong at Thrush (dab). Sometimes it takes a good slap or two before I "get it". Had the same problem at Asrani (surname), and editor ShelfSkewed finally set me straight. Best of everything to you and yours! &mdash;  Paine  Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  10:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it took me quite a while to get to grips with these little things with dabs. Thanks for your message, Boleyn (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Any relation to Anne of the Thousand Days? (one of my favorites)  &mdash;   Paine  Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  11:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I should really watch that again, I haven't seen it since I was a kid. Yeah, Anne Boleyn's my favourite historical character, I started editing WP to work on Tudor articles but have ended up branching out. Boleyn (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * First time for me was in Vietnam. I sat there the entire film completely enthralled.  It's so easy to lose focus while editing.  Like you, my intention was to work on articles related to my favourite subject, astronomy.  I'd start out in, say, Moon and before I knew it there were ten or twelve tabs, and I'd be editing a page that had nothing to do with the Moon nor even astronomy in general.  Branching out certainly tends to round out the perspective.  Good for you!  &mdash;   Paine  Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  04:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

John Pringle
Thanks for adding more. There are more still - ODNB has John Christian Pringle, a Scottish clergyman and social worker, there's John Pringle (geologist), an Australian actor, and at least two Jamaican worthies! DuncanHill (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It's amazing how many notable people don't have articles. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverting without discussing
Why do you revert over and over without visiting the discussion page? With all due respect, I thought that was quite seriously frowned upon by WP, and I never behave that way. Are you an exception of some kind, or have I misunderstood something? SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Serge and thanks for contacting me. I tagged the page for clean-up and put my reasons in the edit summary and in brackets by the clean-up tag. As it's a very unusual (but potentially useful) dab, rather than make the edit I thought might be needed, I tagged it for those on the clean-up team to have a look over. I am not expressing a strong opinion on whether it should be changed or not, but as I watch all of the almost 200,000 dab pages, and can't recall having come across this before, I think it needs a good look, and seeing if it's something we should use more widely or not at all. They may well agree with how it is, but as I put in my edit summary, I think it can benefit from another opinion. The reasons for my edit were clearly explained on the dab itself and in my edit summary, so I was hardly adding the tag with no reason, although it would also have benefitted from my adding it to the dab's discussion page. There really was no need to send me an aggressive message - we're all just trying to write an encyclopedia the best we can, aren't we? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining and thanx for all the good work you do! If you really felt my message was aggressive, I'm very sorry and apologize. It was sincere. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for your message. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Red links on disambiguation pages
Hi. You don't need to apologize if you are acting with good faith. I do know that red-links can be OK on disamb pages, but not all of them. I do not automatically delete red-links on disamb pages, only those that, as in the case of this diff indicate no notability or even reason for existence. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. There certainly are quite a lot of redlinks on dabs where it's hard to see if there's notable or not, but so long as they meet MOS:DABRL or MOS:DABMENTION, then they'll be fine. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I usually go to the trouble of checking out whether or not there is any notability or nexus to any existing links; as in the case of this diff, there clearly was not. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Why would you restore Ian Murphy (athlete) to the Ian Murphy disambiguation page which I rv as clearly and plainly having no qualifying information. Don't leave me silly "apologies" on my talk page; address the facts. Fortunately a later editor fixed it (see diff). You were already chastized (see above) for reverting without explanation or discussion. I understand about the piping, but this has nothing to do with that. I really hope I don't have to review your work. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, rms. Sorry for the delay in responding, I missed this message. I restored it because it meets MOS:DABRL and is a valid link. It does need a blue link to go with it, but as I know so little about this athlete, I was unsure which of the many to add to the line. If I add a redlink myself, I make sure I add a blue link, but if someone else has added it, I either add a blue link or leave it. I'm unsure why you feel the need to be rude and aggressive, it really doesn't help anyone. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Dates in dab pages, please, per WP:MOSDAB
Hi Boleyn, I was recently tidying up John Austin (led there by stub-sorting John Austin (artist)), and found a few entries without dates, where the dates were easily available in the articles (eg the inventor and the Jesuit), which seem to have been added by you. I checked WP:MOSDAB, and it does say "For people, include their birth and death years (when known), ...". If you're adding people, could you please include the dates when they're available? It only takes a moment when you've got the page in front of you and you're editing the dab page. That dab page was getting a bit unwieldy, so I sorted them by birth date eventually. PamD (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Pam. Apologies for not responding sooner, I'm not sure how I missed this message. Yes, I'm aware that the guidelines suggest adding dates of birth and death to disambiguation pages and this is something I usually add when I add a link to a dab, and also that I patrol dabs checking that they have - I guess I've added thousands of them, but at least in the high hundreds. However, sometimes I don't and I really don't think it's a particular problem or worth contacting someone about. The main thing is to have the article created and linked to on a disambiguation page, anything else in my view, is a bonus. I'm sure the dab page looks better now you've added these and arranged them better, thanks for doing that. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It is my humble request
That you take a look at my subpage here and tell me what you think. Nyttend (talk) 13:21, 02 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Nyttend, good to hear from you. Everything on the subpage looks excellent, well-referenced and linked etc. It's not my area at all, so I'm afraid I can't offer any specific advice, but the articles on there look good. Let me know if you think I can be of more help in a subject-non-specific way. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Categories
Hello. Please when adding categories, try to categorise them too (i.e. add them to an existing category). Also, you don't need to add "This page has no subcategories" as this will be determined by the Wikipedia software. I've changed all the categories you have added so far so you can see what I mean. Thanks... Stephenb (Talk) 10:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look them over. It's my first attempt at creating categories. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

DNB
Excellent work, your formatting now is much better. Keep up the good work!♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, and it's great to hear from you. I'm a slow learner, but I get there... Boleyn (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Mitchell (motorcycle racer)
You're right--I should have clicked "What links here." Well, he exists now. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, Drmies, well done for creating the article. Regarding him being on the dab in the first place, it met the criteria but only just. Semi-notable or related-to-notable people can end up meeting the guidelines for inclusion, so it's a contentious area. Thanks for your message, Boleyn (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You and I have done this before--you reproaching me for removing one. Since then, I make a point of checking "what links", and if I had done that this time I wouldn't have removed him. BTW, I found it very, very difficult to source it--that MotoGP site is really the only thing; I found nothing using Google News or Books. Do you have any motorcycle racing history books on your shelf, to get this ready for DYK? E.g., "...that in his eight-season career in the Grand Prix, British motorcycle racer Kevin Mitchell's highest finish was 10th, in the 1992 Dutch TT?" Drmies (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've had this discussion with a few people, and I'm not surprised. If you're used to working on articles in the main, then you have your 'notability' hat on, in a way that isn't quite relevant when it comes to dabs. It completely makes sense for people to wonder why a red link would be there and how it can be useful. Thanks for taking what I said on board and checking, and thanks for creating this article and wanting to improve it further. I know next to nothing about motorsports unfortunately. I put a tag on the article for someone from Wikiproject:Motorcycling to have a look over it. Hopefully people active in that wikiproject would have some more references they can add, I think the general public would struggle to find anything more than you've already put. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Per Nilsson disambiguation
Sorry about the misunderstanding there. I didn't realize you could only have one blue link per line. I should have read why you fixed it before I changed it again. Thanks! Mrbungledisco (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem - you're not the first to get confused with this! When you edit articles, it's usually good to add extra links, so people automatically do the same on disambiguation pages. They are easier to read and find the article if there's one link though. Thanks for taking the time to send me a message. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Me too, "one link per line" policy should change!?
When I improved Henry Fitzroy I didn't know about MOS:DAB 'exactly one navigable (blue) link' per entry'. It seems so obvious to let people on disambiguation pages know there's an article for what they are really want to learn about! The name they heard is just the hook into the subject.

So I challenged this policy on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), I look forward to greater understanding there. Thanks.

(As an aside, in a semantic web where machines are trying to intelligently link content, I think Wikipedia's "canonical" article names can, should, and will become the gold standard for unambiguously identifying things on the web. It will help search engines disambiguate Michael Jackson (radio commentator), Meltdown (John Taylor album), etc. from more popular concepts, and it's the key that will make all our computers Jeopardy winners.)

-- Skierpage (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I'll follow that with interest. Boleyn (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Edward Gera?d Butler
DNB lists him as Edward GeraRd Butler, but the following have him as GeraLd:


 * Spanish Wikipedia
 * Battle of Villers-en-Cauchies
 * thePeerage.com

Google is not particularly helpful.

I have created a redirect.

-- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that, hopefully more people will find the article now. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, from some Google digitized books contemporary to that era, it seems he was referred to as "GeraLd". I will move the article over the redir and edit it accordingly. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick question
Hi Boleyn! I'm working on a study of Wikipedia and noticed you've been a longtime contributor who has also done a lot of different kind of work. Would you mind tapping out a few words about why you decided to start editing and how your experience has changed over time? What is it that brings you back day after day? Thanks, --Cloudmessenger (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Cloudmessenger

Hello. I started off editing articles on my favourite periood of history, the time of Henry VIII. I then realised how difficult it was to find many of the women, because they were known under different surnames. I started checking these and then added redirects and created disambiguation pages to avoid confusion. I definitely intended to stop there, and not to become a long-term contributor! As I was creating these disambiguation pages, I realised how many of the existing ones were in a bit of a state and started working through them. After a long time of concentrating on disambiguation, I realised how many MPs from earlier centuries still didn't have articles and set out to write stubs on them. I enjoyed this, and then moved into creating articles for people who are in the DNB but not Wikipedia; there are thousands of them, all notable. A couple of editors who were involved in the project had contacted me and suggested I work in that area.

As for why I come back...habit, addiction! That's definitely a big part of it. But I think it's that the more you edit Wikipedia, the more you're aware of how much still needs to be done and when you're working on a project with a backlog, you want to see those numbers keep going down, it's pretty satisfying. If you have any more questions, feel free to contact me. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Patricia de Leon
You're a little trigger happy here. I changed from a Redirect to a Disambiguation because Cloud 9 (film) already had a link to Patricia de Leon, but they meant the actress. I changed her to Patricia de Leon (actress) and changed my redirect to a disambiguation. You should have left it alone, or at least asked me before you did this. -Maile66 (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Maile and thank you for creating this dab. You're right that I could have left this (I considered tagging it for clean-up to give it a bit more time) but decided to edit it as it was, as it had been done more than an hour before and I saw nothing to suggest you were planning to come back and correct it.

There were several reasons I edited it: there is no need to have separate dabs at 'de' and 'De', especially as both contain only two names - and they're the same ones. A redirect from one to the other makes more sense. Additionally, there seems to be a clear primary topic, as there's only one article on someone with this name. A redirect to the only article, with perhaps a hatnote to the film would be the usual course. However linking to the film wouldn't really give them any info on this actress, so a dab seems a good idea if there's a chance she'll get an article or mention in other articles. I will certainly consider what you've said, and I hope that you will also consider that like you, I am just trying to improve the encyclopedia - whether I am successful in every case is another issue! It usually produces better results, and a feeling of receiving collegiate advice rather than being attacked, if you phrase your messages in a less angry tone.

Anyway, sorry if my edits inconvenienced you, and I'm glad the dab now has links. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There was no anger on my end when I posted. Yes, I realize you are devoting an extraordinary amount of time to this project. Your service to Wikipedia is invaluable. By the way, you created 4273 articles?  Holy moly! -Maile66 (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. My article are mainly stubs or creating articles from Texts to be transferred from Wikisource so it's not as much work as it sounds. Best wishes, 19:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

new Cat: Grey family
Hi, Is there anywhere anything that defines just who belongs to this 'family' or is it just anyone using the name Grey? e.g. Zane Grey? Cheers. Eddaido (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I'm new to creating categories so don't know if there's anything I should add, but I meant the English aristocratic family, including Queen Jane Grey, so any 20th-century people would need to be descended for this family to be valid additions. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A description of the classification seems to belong on the page concerned [Category:Grey family] between those words and "Pages in category "Grey family"" where it is, right now, blank. Exactly who should be on it starts to get complex immediately with the first person on the list Edward Seymour, Viscount Beauchamp being the son of a Grey mother and not otherwise being a 'Grey'. I'd like to help by giving my idea of who should be in the category but I have already been in very lengthy debate with another editor on this page Talk:Grey (surname). We seem to be having a rest but it will resume in due course(!) The one enormous Grey family I am concerned about spans almost the entire millennium in a long succession of titles but I recognize not Every titled Grey family is part of that very big one family I want to bring to (interested) people's attention. Have I explained why I'm nervous about trying to define who goes into your new category! Can you expand just a little on "I meant the English aristocratic family" then I can ask you questions and we can develop a sufficiently precise description which fits with your intention? Many thanks for your prompt reply. Eddaido (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

My interest is in the Tudor period, and I've added some categories for the prominent families of that era. My intention was just to add those related to Jane Grey and I hadn't really thought beyond that. However, I don't mind how it is used, if you think it could be defined better, as it undoubtedly can be. I'm happy to go with whatever your ideas are of who should be in the category as I don't have any strong opinions on it. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

MacDonald‎/McDonald‎
Whoops, thanks for catching my mistake on that disambiguation link. Monty 845  07:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, happens all the time with the Mcs/Macs. Thanks for your message, Boleyn (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Neil McDonald
I have no preference one way or the other, but I was wondering why you deleted "professional" from "English professional association football / soccer player". If there's a good reason not to, I'll stop using the term. (After all, not using it is less typing!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, pdf. I think it's just unnecessary - if they weren't professional, it'd be very unlikely they'd be notable. Also, from MOS:DAB ''The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary.'' It's already clear, so just doesn't need the extra. But I'd be intersted to hear if you disagree? Boleyn (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Disagree? Nah. As it happens, what you say is pretty much what I had in mind. Once upon a time there were amateur sportsmen, but not these days. I guess I was just a bit surprised at how much money a soccer player I'd never heard of was making. (On the other hand, after David Beckham and Bobby Charlton, I'm having trouble thinking of the name of third English soccer player - I think you can draw your own conclusions from that!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC) P.S. Your reply has given me the justification to continue to do exactly what I want. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as a passing comment - if you're really trying to slim down descriptions, then there's at least one redundant word in "association football / soccer". Association football is the full and proper name of the sport, so there is no need to offer soccer as an alternative; conversely if you're trying to offer localised unofficial names, then "football" is the non-US equivalent of "soccer". So drop the "association" or the "soccer", you don't need both. Going further than that, I'd guess there's quite a lot of amateur players who get over the notability barrier. Just playing international football is notable, and there were amateurs playing for England until 1936, and even today there are certainly a lot of internationals from smaller countries who are only semi-professional and I imagine that if you dig deep enough, you'll find some who are truly amateur (or I imagine that somewhere like North Korea, they're not allowed to sign professional contracts. In England cricket the amateur thing persisted until the 1960s. But if you're saying that notable amateur footballers are rare enough for "professional" to be redundant, then surely both "association" and "soccer" are redundant in the context of an English footballer? What percentage of English footballers play gridiron or Aussie Rules? A far smaller percentage than the number who are amateur-and-notable. So just say "English football player" - it's obvious enough what is meant. PS The numbers quoted in the article are not his salary but transfer fees, what one club pays to another club to break a player out of a contract. The numbers are much bigger now since the Murdoch money came into football, these days you might be looking at US$15-20m transfer fees for a player like McDonald who was good enough to be player of the year for a club challenging for the League title, albeit not absolutely world-class, and he would get a salary of say US$5-7m/year on top of that. These days the total revenues of the EPL are just starting to pull ahead of the NBA, NHL etc, although they're still a way behind the NFL - the big difference is that EPL revenues are split 50:50 domestic:abroad. Le Deluge (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks "Deluge". Very interesting and informative. (I had no idea about the nature of the numbers, nor their sizes.)
 * (I can't spell, either.)
 * On the other topic: Being from the southern half of Australian, I'm used to people around me being possessive about the use of the word "football". The Ozzie-rules advocates don't consider soccer to be football, and get upset when one refers to it as football. Similarly, rugby football is Rugby, not football. So yes, although your comments are accurate and logically correct, I am/was responding to an environment where emotion, not logic, has the upper hand.
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ladies Hall
I'm not sure if you're the same as User:Jeanne boleyn but if not you may be interested in a message I've just left for her. Le Deluge (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was an interesting letter. Do you have a date for it? I've amended the article accordingly. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's Review of English Studies (1970) XXI (84): 472-b-473. doi: 10.1093/res/XXI.84.472-b. I was going to do a bit more of a rewrite when I had a moment (not now! End of the tax year is a bad time....) based on more of the Nichols stuff. Having done a fair bit of work on the Scottish clan battles I'm well aware how all sorts of nonsense collated by "definitive" early writers can get repeated and adapted as the gospel truth in later years, but only because there's no other source (until sometimes, a modern historian digs something up in an archive somewhere). That's why I was interested in your date of 1615 for its foundation - can you remember the context of that? Le Deluge (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I suspect this was wrongly placed information which I moved into its own article, I can't remember, but it's not a topic I know anything about, I'm afraid. I've given two references, but as they're now a broken link, they're pretty worthless, and I probably found them by Googling and it seemed a reliable source. Sorry I can't be of more help. Boleyn (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Center Point
I want to run this past you for feedback. How this arose in the first place, was an edit in good faith. The editor listed a notable person under Center Point, Texas, in Kerr County when the noted individual is actually associated with Center Point in Camp County, Texas. The Center Point in Camp County does not have an existing Wiki page. There already exists a Center Point disambiguation page, which I think needs the one in Kerr County, Texas added. However, in addition to the Kerry County one, five listings for Center Point in different counties are on List of ghost towns in Texas, with no Wiki pages, and probably no pages in the near future. My question: for clarification purposes, should these ghost towns be added to the disambiguation page, without a red link. It would be helpful, since there are enough Center Points in Texas to cause confusion. -Maile66 (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Maile66, and thanks for your message. I've looked it over, and they are definitely valid entries. They meet MOS:DABRL, and so I've added them to the Center Point dab. I'd say it's never useful to add an entry without any links, because it gives the reader nowhere to go, and the disambiguation page is meant to offer links to articles on Wikipedia. When there's real possibility of confusion, a search for the name usually shows up an article which already mentions it, and then it can be redlinked there, making it a vald entry on the disambiguation page. Center Point Camp County was already redlinked in 4 articles, so meets the guidelines. Now they're on the dab, it'll encourage others to create the articles too. I've put a hatnote at Kerr County, Texas to make it clear there are others. I hope that seems OK, if you think there's something I haven't covered, just let me know and I'll look at it again. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Boleyn. This was really great of you to help me with this. Hope you don't mind, but on the disambiguation page, I noted Kerr County for the one Center Point that does already have a page. You're the best. -Maile66 (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You've made me blush! Don't mind at all, that should make things clearer. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only '''5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Done, Boleyn (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dan Schafer


The article Dan Schafer has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. The-Pope (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I created that page as a redirect to the disambiguation page Daniel Schafer, it was made an article by User:SchaferMusic - the username immediately rings warning bells! I'll leave a message on that editor's page, but I think it'd best be changed back to a redirect, he doesn't seem notable. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

On second thoughts, that user is blocked for self-promotion; I'll just change the page back to how it was before their edits. Hope this is OK with you? Boleyn (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Gerbarus Fleccius for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gerbarus Fleccius is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gerbarus Fleccius until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. J Milburn (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, he seems to have been known under more than one name. I've commented on the AfD discussion. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry!
So sorry- I am still learning the wiki-etticutte. (A word I just cannot spell). Nightenbelle (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for improving some of the articles I created from Texts to be transferred from Wikisource. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Friedrich August Schulze


A tag has been placed on Friedrich August Schulze 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, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. hmssolent\Let's convene 07:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ignore that above, the issuer of the tag has withdrawn his decision (although this message serves more purpose to any passing person who reads this page than the user him or herself). --43?9enter ☭msg☭contribs 07:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it was a bizarre nomination. Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation
I deleted the text of the article John Bankin because it was a copyright violation of

Often the text of the ODNB is just a copy with some minor alterations of an original DNB article, but in this case it was a substantial rewrite. If the ODNB is an update of the DNB there is always a DNB page linked to it. It is safe to copy that text but not the ODNB text as any updates or corrections are copyrighted.

Versions of DNB articles are often available on Wikisource and can be linked to using. But there is no article in this case. A version of the DNB article is also available at the Internet Archive (see Dictionary of National Biography for a complete listing) which is the one I have given as a link in the rewritten John Bankin article: -- PBS (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:DNB variables
I have just wikified a second article you created from the DNB (Thomas Christopher Banks). I came across it because to showed up in: Category:Articles incorporating DNB template with an unnamed parameter To advoid this, if you use the template DNB, please add the name of the DNB article with with either  or.

It would also aid the project if you could include details like author names (first= last=), volume= and pages=. (the latter two are not available via the copy on the ODNB but they do exist in the DNB copies on Wikisource). -- PBS (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on these. Boleyn (talk) 06:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Tilden Stewart Holley
Thanks for adding a category to Tilden Stewart Holley. But instead of "American pilots", shouldn't it be "Pilots from America" instead? MetaCow (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, the category wasn't working. Seems there isn't a category 'American pilots' or 'Pilots from America', so I changed it to the existing categories 'American aviators' and 'pilots', I hope this is OK. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would've been alright. I guess one of Wikipedia's bots changed it to 'Aviator occupation' or something like that. I'd have to double-check what it was changed to. Thanks anyway, though. Really is appreciated. MetaCow (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Stoyle references
The refs you are adding to articles as "Devil dogs, Mark Stoyle, p.26, April 2011, BBC History Magazine" should refer to the May issue, not the April issue, see http://www.historyextra.com/issue/may-2011. Regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 15:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and well-spotted! I'll change those. Boleyn (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Perfect information (disambiguation)


The article Perfect information (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Misleading disambiguation, "perfect information" is the essentially the same thing in economics and game theory, not the same thing as perfect competition

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. C RETOG 8(t/c) 22:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and I agree, it should be deleted. I've edited it, but wasn't the creator. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages
Hello! I see you have returned some of the pages I worked on back to Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup. Please teach me what I am missing, because I want to continue and learn about this. I have read WP:MOSDAB, WP:D, etc., but evidently I am not finding what I need; or not finding it very clear. Here are a few questions I have if you can take the time to clue me in: Thank you for your time. I know you have a lot going on, but if you take the time to help clean up my act, your work will multiply through me. Best Regards,  JMax  (Okay, tell me. What'd I do this time?)  23:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) In Entrenchment you wrote "image".  I have been wanting to remove images from various DAB pages I have seen, but didn't know which ones are allowed. WP:MOSDAB says they are "discouraged"; so I didn't want another editor to beat me over the head with the fact that it doesn't say they are "not allowed".  How do you decide whether it can be removed or not?
 * 2) Related to that: In another page Alexandrovsk there is a nav template at the bottom.  Are those allowed?  It seems very distracting to me, but when I took it off, an administrator put it back on.  Not only is it an eyesore for a DAB, which is suppose to be clean and to the point, the template has so many redlinks to pages that have no links to them.  Please tell me if I am right to remove these sorts of things or not.
 * 3) In Luminous you wrote "partial matches".  Is this what is described in WP:PTM?  I have wanted to pare down some very large disambiguation pages becuase of this, but I am sure I will get scalped by other editors who spend a lot of time creating "encyclopedias" out of DAB pages.  Any advice as to how to proceed with this?

I missed this message I'm afraid, so sorry for the delay. Disambiguation pages can be a pernickety area as you're finding! And to an extent, it always comes down to what the editor thinks is best, and some people will think otherwise.
 * 1) I'm not as good at the technical aspects of dabs as editors like JHunterJ and Tassedethe, but I watch all the human name disambiguation pages and have edited many other types of dabs, and images are extremely rare. When I see them, I remove them, or tag them for cleanup and the next editor always removes them. Although it says 'discouraged' for quite a few things, that's really to leave it up to the editor's discretion when to ignore all rules. I can't think of an example where an image would aid disambiguation, as they're meant to essentially be an index of articles, and to get you to the correct article quickly, nothing else.
 * 2) Regarding navigation templates, I can't see that they have a place on dabs. It draws the eye straight away, delaying the reader from what they're there to do - find the right article and start reading it. I would probably have removed it too and I'm unclear what it can add to the disambiguation.
 * Yes, that's the section I meant. It is a huge problem on dabs, and lots do need paring down. They are rarely put back in by other editors when you do remove entries. If they are, I tend to put a clean-up tag on it, with a comment in the edit summary and maybe the Talk page, asking for a third opinion. If this is taken off I restore it, leaving a polite message that it wouldn't hurt to have someone from the clean-up crew to look at it. That usually works. I also sometimes add a see also section with {intitle} or {lookfrom} (with an extra { on each side), which means that users can still access those titles, but they're not listed on the dab. I don't know if everyone would agree with this, but it seems to me to be a good solution. I have left several pages in what I consider to be in a state, because the other editor feels so strongly about it that they won't stop edit warring. If they're someone who adds quite a lot to Wikipedia, but is one of those people who can be a bit argumentative, I tend now to leave it, and figure they do more good than harm, and it doesn't matter in the scheme of things anyway. If they're just vandalising, then I'd keep track of it. I figure my time could usually be better spent; it's easy to get sucked into these things and I still do from time to time.

The guidelines are frequently reviewed and edited, and anyone can post on its Talk page any changes they might want - I often find things are a bit too vague for me, but then often it's helpful that they have a bit of give. But any ideas for improvement can be discussed there. And I'm never too busy to answer your questions, it's great to see someone making sure they're getting things right and using their time to edit Wikipedia. I tend to follow related changes (any category can be added onto the end). Anyway, thanks for your message and contact me anytime. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your message. (Don't worry.  Today is the first time I have been online since I wrote to you.)  This is quite helpful for me to hear about some of your experiences, and I think I have a better handle on what I can do.  I have a similar attitude about avoiding edit warring about trivial things.  There are so many other things that I can do to be much more constructive.  Thanks again for your time and consideration.  I will let you know if I have more questions, as I am sure I will sometime in the future.  Best regards, and have fun!   JMax   (Okay, tell me. What'd I do this time?)  20:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Official title versus common name.
May I invite you to contribute to the discussion on Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry? I think that my position is correct but do not have the wikiknowledge to support it. You're the most knowledgeable editor that I know of when it comes to titles. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with you and have left a comment. Proteus is the only editor I can think of who might be worth consulting on it, he/she seems to work a lot on titles. However, it seems that there's near-consensus already. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Categorising
Hi Boleyn, Twice recently I've stub-sorted an article where you'd added a very broad category: Category:Books to The Dramatic Imagination (rather than Category:Non-fiction books about theatre) and Category:Villages to ... oh, can't find it now, somewhere in Asia for which there was an available much more precise category ("Villages in xyz district"). I wonder whether this is useful: it takes the article out of the "Uncategorised" category, so means it is less likely that someone interested in providing a detailed category will turn up and categorise it. If you aren't going to dig around for the best categories for an article, I think it would be more helpful to leave it uncategorised rather than add such a broad parent category. There is no merit in emptying the "Uncategorised" category by adding frankly un-useful categories. Your thoughts? PamD (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just found Khek Noi: to which you've added Category:Places. Not useful. I've given it Category:Phetchabun Province, Category:Tambon, Phetchabun-geo-stub, which will get it into the hands of people interested in that area of Thailand and that level of local admin unit. I don't see how the encyclopedia is helped by Category:Places (there are currently 3 articles in that category, all categorised by you: it seems no-one else uses it other than as the parent category of a lot of other categories). PamD (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Pam. I think if a category is completely unuseful, then it should probably be deleted (as I think has been the case with a few lately, like 20th-century people). With the three that I categorised as 'Places' I had looked for other possibilities first, and used it as a last resort. Some of the articles I've been looking at, such as those three, are so vague that I've no idea what sort of place they are. I added this category with a 'catimprove' tag to one, and have just added this to the other two. However, I was unsure if this was necessary - any article in a category such as 'Villages', 'Places', 'Books' etc. could probably be part of a more specific category. However, I think about half the time I remove an uncat template, I replace it with a morecat one, alongside adding categories. I also think that having a category that isn't that specific is definitely better than being uncategorised, especially as the people who patrol those broad categories are likely to have more knowledge of how to write, format and categorise articles on that type of topic. I've only just started working on categorising articles which aren't on people, so am learning more specific categories as I go along, although I can't believe the amount of them out there...also as I'm going along, I'm adding stub tags (hence your work on these), unreferenced tags etc., so my aim isn't to remove tags from articles, as I'm probably adding as many as I'm removing. Overall, I definitely think that having these categories is useful. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In the case of Kaligoanj, the text of the article gives enough information to place it in Category:Upazilas of Gazipur District, so I really don't see why you couldn't find a category more specific than "Places"! Even some broader category within Bangladesh would have been a lot more useful. PamD (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * After categorising Rat Rod Magazine I've raised the matter at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories/uncategorized because I think your approach is bad for Wikipedia. PamD (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

David Tait (disambiguation)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of David Tait (disambiguation), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.davidtait.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) 07:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The bot is very confused! Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Uncategorised with a history
Hi, Just to mention that in a couple of cases where I've worked on articles where you've resolved their uncategorised status I've found by looking at the page history that the article had previously been well equipped with end matter which got lost in vandalism or careless cleanup! Melinoessa is today's example, and Skhirat one of yesterday's. If I see an article which has been around for a little while and is an unsorted stub, it rings alarm bells and I check the history. All sorts of weird things happen to articles, but if it's been carefully categorised and stub-sorted in the past it's good to be able to rescue that work rather than re-doing it. Just alerting you to this pattern of "how some articles come to be uncategorised" in case it's helpful. PamD (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that hadn't occurred to me. Boleyn (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dan Schafer
The article Dan Schafer has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article. The-Pope (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I know that you didn't create the article - it's just a TW standard message. Last time you reverted it to a redirect -but reading the article it might be salvagable and borderline notable, so I'm willing to give the IP or anyone else a chance (10 days) to save it and bring it up to the required standard, before it's deleted/reverted to a redirect. The-Pope (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (Thanks for your help with the disambiguation page Jay Clarke. I appreciate your skill in this area.) I did numerous searches about Dan Schafer -- US newspapers, entertainment publications, music magazines, Nashville publications, and so forth, hunting for a solid reference. I didn't find one but my sense is Dan Schafer is a professional musician with considerable talent and experience who probably was Shania Twain's lead guitarist and who probably did play on Letterman as claimed. And I was able to ferret out other Dan Schafer name mentions (eg Dan Vapid, also a Coca-cola spokesperson, also others). There are YouTube videos with Twain's name with Schafer's. And there are several albums mentioned that he did on Billboard Magazine. There is also evidence of considerable self-promotion by him on the web. I'm wondering are there Nashville music publications which talk about him that perhaps I didn't come across? At any rate, my sense is he's borderline notable -- like an excellent musician but who doesn't get much attention in the press because he's basically doing his job (music) and doing it well. If you need my help please bug me about this to keep checking but I have other stuff to do. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work looking into this, you seem to have covered every angle. Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Florin Bătrânu
With all the respect I think the article has enough sources for a page of a football player, who was not a legend or something. Is not my first page created and until now this type of page was more than enough. Rhinen
 * , this has no sources clearly listed at all. It has 'external links' (suggestions for further reading) but doesn't clearly list your sources. As this is a biography of a living person, this is a particular concern. If those were your sources, just change the heading and preferably WP:INLINECITE them. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok I can find some sources, but after I put them in the article, please rollback it back from its draft status to article. :) Rhinen
 * Done, thanks for your hard work on this, Boleyn (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

NPL A-League pages deletion request
Hello again, Boleyn. So about two months ago, I started creating NPL pages for the A-League reserves teams. We had Melbourne City FC NPL created and then I thought I might create the other teams articles.

However, I just have to ask. Do we really need the pages to be split? For me, I don't think it's a good idea, because it is just mainly taking well resourced information and moving to another page. I had discissions with Eccy89 about it. I think we should leave put all that resourced information into one accurate page. I wanted to ask your opinion, because I don't know what to do at the moment.

FastCube (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)FastCube
 * Hi . I don't feel I know enough about the subject area to be sure, but it would be worth opening an RfC or a discussion on one of the article talk pages. Certainly worth pausing and discussing before creating more, just in case the consensus is for them to stay together, especially as the notability of reserve teams is likely to be questioned. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Communication
Hi Boleyn. Thanks for all your messages. I'm really sorry, didn't see your messages earlier. Didn't know all the rules either regarding new pages. From now on I will be careful of copyright and using good sources.

Steel Dogg (talk) 10:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Danubia is not a planet
In Danubia (disambiguation) you changed the label for the link on Danubia=minor planet to the list of minor planets with 'Danubia (planet). However, as per WP:minor planet: A minor planet is an astronomical object in direct orbit around the Sun [...] that is neither a planet nor exclusively classified as a comet. I will change the link label on the disambiguation page but I have no idea how to change the title of the redirect you created for Danubia (planet). Naamloze gebruiker (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to say minor planet and replaced the corrections at the dab. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)