User talk:Boleyn/Archive 16

William Erskine, Lord Kinneder
I see you did this from the old DNB. I assume you intend to go back to it, for it is exceptionally old-fashioned even for them: "the charge against him of an improper liaison, a groundless and malignant calumny, which Scott said ‘would have done honour to the invention of the devil himself,’ so seriously affected his health and spirits that, though it was proved to be utterly groundless, he never recovered from the shock caused by the accusation. It ‘struck,’ said Scott, ‘into his heart and soul;’ he became nerveless and despondent, was finally attacked by fever and delirium, and died on 14 August 1822."  DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, DGG, hope you are well. Yes, this was created from the old DNB and needs improvements to the language. I was working on the project to get these articles started on Wikipedia, but my focus was starting them, ensuring they were properly formatted, referenced and had wikilinks, and then moving on, not going back to them and getting them polished. I've just had a look over it and made some small improvements. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Charles Egerton
Howdy - this disambig page has incoming links for Charles Egerton's that we do not currently have articles on, hence the unlinked entries. Doubly confusing for the reader that there are two politicians by this name (16th and 16th/17th century) and two British soldiers (18th and 19th/20th century), as well as a (probably sub-notable) 20th century horse trainer, an author and a surgeon. It seems this high-achieving line uses the name 'Charles' a lot as one of them signed King Charles the first's death warrant way back when. Anywho, can I ask for a special dispensation to retain the entries you deleted until I can at least work out who's who please? Cheers. - TB (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, and I'll see if I can help unravel it too. Boleyn (talk) 07:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * See also User_talk:Topbanana, and the item above it on that page too. Pam  D  08:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see you have indeed seen it - we're both working at same time. Pam  D  08:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Good morning, Pam. Yeah, just commented there. I think it's (mainly) unravelled now, though took a while. Thanks for your help in improving this page, Boleyn (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Darnit, that was my job for today - now I'll have to do something useful instead ;) Many thanks both.  In case you find yourself unravelling the soldiers also, this chap  may be relevant - I'll figure it out myself eventually. - TB (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hope you've enjoyed doing something useful! Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just turned the other dab page at Charles Egerton (disambiguation) into a redirect to the current one. Pam  D  08:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hadn't see that, well done. Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Boleyn - I see you are still doing great stuff and I was glad to see you sorted out this Charles Egerton business as I find "politician" a really unhelpful qualifier for historical MPs. You may not be aware that there is a splendid new resource available for MPs in the History of Parliament Online website. This gives all MPs up to 1832 split into 30 year bands (excluding 1604-1659). That means you can disambiguate almost everyone at least by year of death and add some basic bio details. Here is a hook into one MP and from that you can pick the index on initial letters of others or other date ranges. . On another matter there is a silly nuisance who has been moving baronet articles to a cut down two name format when there isn't an existing dambig situation - which gives us problems when the disambiguation need arises as with Thomas Hatton, so if you come across cases where there is a baronet sitting on a page that could be better used it is probably worth moving said Bart first. Best regards Motmit (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll check it out. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Hans Olson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * was linked to Hans Olsson, Hans Olsen


 * George Coates (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * was linked to Coates (surname)

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, a bot I haven't seen before. Yes, both of these were intended and are correct. Boleyn (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks a useful bot and will be a welcome addition, but I'd have thought the bot was right about the Olson page - surely the links to the dab pages should be through redirects, so that it doesn't get picked up in future searches for incoming links to dab pages? Have amended it.  As for Coates... not sure, because if we made a redirect from "Coates (surname)" to "Coates (disambiguation)" it would presumably get changed as a double redirect and end up pointing straight to "Coates".  Hmm.  Pam  D  10:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And on 2nd thoughts about GC, coming back after a morning out and finding this still on my screen, I don't think we need the link anyway: we don't routinely link from every Joe Bloggs to "Bloggs (surname)", whether Joe Bloggs is an article or a dab page. So I've WP:BOLDly removed that link from the "See also" section, in the hopes that there wasn't some special reason for it being there. Pam  D  14:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Amerikka, Finland
Not sure what you wan to add? There are allegedly woods, houses and fields called "Amerikka" in Finland, but there may be also dogs and cats called "Amerikka" - I'm not sure there's a benefit from adding these entities without a smidge more information, but maybe I'm wrong. Rich Farmbrough, 11:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC).

I'm a bit confused - do you think the 'incomplete disambiguation' tag means it needs more entries? The 'complete' dab would be at Amerikka, we don't tend to have dabs subdivided like this. I don't know if there are clear guidelines on it or not actually, but if you look at Category:Incomplete disambiguation, you'd get a better idea. Unless I've misunderstood something? Boleyn (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, Ok. Seems that if someone does enter "Amerikka, Finland" they should not have to trawl through all the Amerikkas in Sweden. Rich Farmbrough, 19:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC).

They wouldn't have to, Amerikka, Finland could redirect to Amerikka#Finland, although as there are only 2 other places listed called Amerika on the dab, I don't think it would really be a trawl. Also, neither of the 2 at the moment meet MOS:DABMENTION or MOS:DABRL. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Name spelling and disambiguation pages
Hi there! Your recent edit alerted me to a particular issue on Wikipedia that will (eventually) need resolving; I thought today might be the day we finally do it. I'm inviting you to join a discussion I've started at WikiProject Disambiguation. Please participate. Thanks so much! --Calling All Creeps! (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added some comments there. Boleyn (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

disamgiguation question
Is it correct to add someone to a disambiguation page if they don't have an article but are only mentioned in an article - dispute is regarding John Pike a policeman involved in pepper spraying incident. John_Pike - Off2riorob (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, if they meet MOS:DABMENTION, then they can be added. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks that MOS:DABMENTION makes only mention of inanimate objects - is there any difference given to consideration between such things and living people? Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, although the example is an inanimate object, the guideline applies to all potential entries. Boleyn (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Fred Mayer (Photographer)


A tag has been placed on Fred Mayer (Photographer) 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 labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". 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 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. Tanzeel Ahad 10:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I didn't create this page, I just moved it from a misspelt title. I'll let the creator know. Boleyn (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Article Names
Hello, Best O Fortuna. I'm sorry, but I'm not really sure what you're talking about - the artist Thomas C. Lea, III's article? I don't think I named it or have edited it. If you mean the disambiguation page, that would usually cover all Thomases and Toms together, and would usually be at the full name, with a redirect from the diminutive, because (usually) all Toms are actually Thomases (at least on their birth certificates) but not all Thomases are ever known as Tom. In this case, if someone had typed in Thomas Lea yesterday, nothing would have come up. Today, whether they type in Thomas Lea or Tom Lea, they go straight to a page listing all possible articles. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I must have been in need of sleep.  Just ignore and delete this.  Cheers. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Me too! Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Klimaszewski, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Andrzej Klimaszewski (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Edward Lloyd Jones disambiguation
I believe Edward Lloyd Jones should remain and not be merged with Edward Jones as although both father and son listed on it have the surname Jones they are always referred to as Edward Lloyd Jones as if Lloyd Jones was the surname. I doubt that anyone would look for them under Edward Jones. In fact later generations of the family have in fact become Lloyd-Jones. Castlemate (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand your point, and have copied it onto the merge discussion at Talk:Edward Jones. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Frankie (film)
Hi, The posted notices mention a discussion, but the links fail to arrive anywhere where such a discussion is underway.

Also, in what respect is the list incomplete? If items are missing, people add them over time. Not so? I don't expect to write a GA article on the first pass.

Varlaam (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'll look at starting a discussion. If you look at [Category:Incomplete disambiguation], it'll give you other examples of incomplete disambiguations, it has nothing to do with a lack of entries. Essentially the complete disambiguation is at 'Frankie' or 'Frankie (disambiguation)', and we don't encourage multiple disambiguations that can end up duplicating material, and thus material can fall through the gaps. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't waste your time setting that up.
 * I just saw a Diane Kruger movie for sale yesterday, Quebec-style where it's illegal to have English on the DVD, so I thought I would check here, where typing Frankie (film) got me nothing.
 * If you wanna relocate, that's ok, but is it conventional to have a REDIRECT point to a page subsection; that is what I would do in this instance.
 * Varlaam (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC) (Toronto)

The merge would leave a redirect page to a page subsection - the proposal is that it would change to a redirect to Frankie#Films. If this received consensus, then I would create the subsection 'Films' in the Frankie disambiguation page. I think that's best, but if anyone has any other ideas, they can addthem to the Talk page. It would certainly be a useful redirect. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ipswich (UK Parliament constituency) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links to John Wood, Richard Church, Thomas Hayward, James Andrew, Thomas Hall, Robert Lucas and William Spencer

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm struggling to disambiguate these, but have marked as disambiguation needed and am still working on article. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John Greville Fennell


A tag has been placed on John Greville Fennell 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, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, 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, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". 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 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. Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions  17:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised this was nominated - I can see it's already been contested. Boleyn (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Hello, Boleyn. It seems a bit odd for you to add Incominglinks to a disambiguation page, Peter Brooke, that you created yourself. After all, WP:FIXDABLINKS suggests that you retarget the incoming links before converting a redirect into a disambiguation page. Based on an admittedly quick glance at the list of incoming links, it doesn't look like it would have been very difficult for you to fix this yourself. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks to me as if the 20th century figure is the primary usage, so why not leave Peter Brooke to redirect there, with a hatnote pointing to the 17th century chap? At a quick glimpse most, if not all, of the incoming links appear to relate to the former so will still be OK. The hatnote could offer a link to one or two of the alternative spellings if you think that important, perhaps "Brook" in particular. Pam  D  22:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been WP:BOLD and reverted to the redirect, and tweaked the hatnotes at Peter Brooke and Peter Brook accordingly. At a quick check every one of the incoming links seems to be related to 20th century politics, so they would all have been led unnecessarily to a dab page. I think it looks OK now. Hope you agree. Pam  D  22:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, R'n'B, I made a mistake with that one. It was interesting to read the guidelines again. I can't say I always fully follow them, as if I'm struggling to disambiguate correctly, I'd rather leave it or add an incominglinks tag than do nothing at all - this way the dab is up and running. Thanks, Pam, I think your move is probably the right decision. I hate a double hatnote, but that's a personal thing. Boleyn (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ipswich (UK Parliament constituency) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to John Barker, Robert Barker, William Gay, Philip Williams and John More


 * Aandahl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fred Aandahl

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Harry Andrews
Hi Boleyn, I stopped by Harry Andrews after seeing the name mentioned here http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/nopqp/til_that_harry_d_andrews_18901981_was_declared/. I undid your edit here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Andrews&diff=453073239&oldid=452763736 since the link target was speedily deleted, rendering the otherpeople link red. Unfortunately, since the dab page was deleted, I can't read it. (Maybe Wikipedia should have a soft delete feature) Is there anything that I missed out? Was it about Harry D. Andrews? --Bxj (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't find out - I think only the deleting editor would know. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Anthony Barnewall


The article Anthony Barnewall has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * non-notable soldier

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I see this prod has already been removed. Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Edward Owens (disambiguation)


The article Edward Owens (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Disambig page with only two items. As each target has a hatnote leading to the other page, this disambiguation page is not needed

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  23:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I see this was withdrawn. I also found, and have added, two more names to the page. WP:TWODABS doesn't insist that we can't have dabs for two entries, although I agree that it's usually unnecessary. In this case, there are two very valid see alsos, so I think the page was useful before my improvements. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Redirects to disambig pages
Greetings! I notice that you've been making a lot of disambiguation pages (which I applaud), but I would like to point out that in many instances you have added "Foo (surname)" links, where "Foo (surname)" redirects to "Foo (disambiguation)". These show up as errors in our lists of disambiguation links to be fixed, so please either make this links to "Foo (disambiguation)", at least pipe them (like  Foo (surname) . If you could have a look back at the disambiguation pages that you initially created, there are many of these that need fixing. Cheers! bd2412  T 20:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. Overall, you have done great work, and I appreciate your presence here! bd2412  T 20:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. If you let me know where I can find these pages, I'll look them over - this isn't something I've done in a while, so you don't need to worry about any more being added. Sorry for inconveniencing you. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I was wondering if you could help with a problem I'm having patrolling Category:Incomplete disambiguation? I've worked on a lot of these since you did so much in May, and I've had a lot of editors remove the tags, thinking that it means more entries need to be added. I've received a few messages about this, and have struggled to find appropriate guidelines or to clearly articulate why there's a problem with these disambiguation pages, even though I believe they cause a lot of confusion. Are there guidelines/explanations anywhere: if so, where, and if not, do you know anyone who could write them? Fantastic work on all that by the way, you must have found over a thousand. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

By Jones
Hello Boleyn, I would be happy to do any clean-up work to Franklin Jones (disambiguation), but I am having trouble figuring out what exactly you are referring to - any hints? :)   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 16:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you did a good initial clean-up, but I'm just unsure if there's a primary. If there is, the format should be different, with the primary at the top, and 'Franklin Jones may also refer to:' below it. It's hard to tell what's the primary, as the one currently the primary isn't primarily known as Franklin Jones, making it more complicated. If it remains as it is, someone may take WP:TWODABS to the extreme and try to delete the page. I think primary usage definitely needs looking into. Best wishes and thanks for helping on this, Boleyn (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

A New Year for the DNB, and launch of "volume of the month"
See WT:WP DNB for a collaboration that I'm in the course of setting up. Everyone who signed up to the WikiProject for the Dictionary of National Biography is being notified, and I thought you might be interested too, while there is still time to alter the way of working if need be. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

UK Parliament constituency
I have noticed that you are working on UK Parliament constituencies lately. Unfortunately, those articles end up with loads of unsalvageble links to disambiguation pages. For instance, Lancashire (UK Parliament constituency) has 17 links, City of York also 17 and I have seen more articles passing by. Could you please add only usefull links? I saves your times, my time and the time of others, because in most cases only unlinking works! Night of the Big Wind talk  16:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought I'd look into them carefully before replying, so I've just spent over an hour and a half on Lancashire. Thanks for working on these, and for letting me know that you were struggling. I was too, the first time round, which is why I tagged them for more work. When I've looked through the few remaining ones, the majority were very easy to do. I think the first time there were so many, my brain couldn't cope! I've fixed most of them quite easily, all except for 2 MPs, but I'll keep working on it. City of York now has none. Also, some people may know more bout these individuals and thus find it easier to work out who's who than we are. However, the majority are easily salvageable, even with someone (like me) with no knowledge in the area. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Margaret and Mary Shelton
Hi Boleyn, I've been looking at the Margaret and Mary Shelton page, and I notice you've mentioned that Mary and Margaret are likely the same person. I am thinking of moving the page to Mary Shelton. Is there a history here? I don't want to raise the hackles of early modern wikipedians, but I don't think there is any concrete evidence that Mary and Margaret were separate people Cultures92 (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I'm really interested in Mary Shelton, and have read both books which devote a chapter to her - Paul G. Remley's and Kelly Hart's - both are well-researched and recent, and both state there's no evidence that these were two people. They both state that confusion was probably caused by the y in Mary often being written like a g, so Mary often looked like Marg in Tudor-era handwriting. Unfortunately, the character, as 'Madge' Shelton, has been popular in historical fiction, so people are likely to look her up as Madge or Margaret. I've looked into it extensively, and found nothing to support the idea that they were separate people, so I put the page at Mary Shelton, with Margaret redirecting. This was changed by another editor, see Talk:Mary and Margaret Shelton. It's not a great article as it stands, mainly because of this confusion. You might want to raise it again on the Talk page, and move it if there are no further objections - the article has been improved since it was moved, and I've backed up more clearly the idea that they were one person with references. Thanks for looknig into this. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I am a Remley fan too! (although I have yet to read Kelly Hart's work). I will raise the question of a move on the Shelton talk page, and will offer to put in plenty of redirects -- I definitely don't want to make it difficult for folks who have read about a fictional Madge Shelton to find the real Mary Shelton. Cultures92 (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Members of Parliament
Many thanks for the gold star last week. I appreciate your appreciation.

If you find any errors during your researches on the History of Parliament site (and there are some howlers) then Paul Seaward of the website team would like to know about them. I have sent him half a dozen. His e-mail address is PSeaward@histparl.ac.uk

Regards Plucas58 (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll keep an eyeout. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Steven Black (disambiguation)
People like Don Black (white nationalist) don't belong on the above page. He is already listed here Don Black And if you wanted to list Stephen Blacks' then you should have created Stephen Black (disambiguation) page rather then the redirect. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 15:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, and thank you for contacting me. I have to disagree about "Don" Black. There is a redirect of 'Stephen D Black' to his to his page already, and his personal name is 'Stephen Black' - as the page is a collection of those either with this personal name or commonly known as this, he meets the criteria. I also have to disagree about putting 'Steven' and 'Stephen' Blacks on the same page. The pronunciation is the same, and many people will be unsure of which spelling is correct when they type it in. The introduction makes it clear that it is or 'Steven' or 'Stephen Black's, and there is a link to the page at both the primary pages for 'Steven Black' and 'Stephen Black'. If there are reams of entries, it may be helpful to separate the Steves, Stevens and Stephens to separate pages, but it usually can only cause duplication and possible confusion. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I now agree with you about Don Black. You should of created Stephen Black (disambiguation) as a proper page not a redirect & then placed it in see also section in Steven Black (disambiguation). Rather then making a mess of Steven Black (disambiguation) & tagging it with a clean tag. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 16:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you not willing to discuss it anymore? Or will I have take it here Redirects for discussion &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 16:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I wasn't online, which is why I didn't reply immediately to your message. In terms of RfD, you can certainly raise the issue there, although I think the Talk page of Steven Black dab would be the best way to deal with it, especially as it has a clean-up tag, as this means it can be looked over by the most experienced in disambiguation. The clean-up tag is there simply for the reason mentioned in brackets after it - is Steven Black, the former Vice-Chairman of JP Morgan Chase & Co., so notable that he deserves the primary 'Steven Black' page, with no disambiguator, or should he be moved to Steven Black (businessman) or something similar, and the disambiguation page be at 'Steven Black'? There is no other reason for the tag. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah now a I see the rational behind your edits. Yes if Steven Black (disambiguation) was the primary than this makes perfect sense. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 18:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Grove / Groves
Instead of using links you created to add red-links onto disambiguation pages "per MOS:DABRL" despite long-standing convention to avoid them, why not just create the articles Bob Grove (ice hockey), Bob Grove (producer), and Bob Groves (musician)? That way there would be no disagreement over whether the links belong there. I'm not going to edit-war about it, but to claim they belong because each has one or two links you placed there mere hours ago is really not in the spirit of how Wikipedia works. I'm not saying the articles themselves don't belong...but they don't exist, so there's no need for disambiguation. Frank &#124;  talk  17:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Frank. I was following the guidelines, per MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION, which have grown out of consensus. I have no time to, interest in, or enough knowledge of these individuals to create those articles - nor do they have to meet the notability criteria for a full article in order to meet the guidelines for inclusion on a dab. If you disagree with the guidelines, then by all means raise this on the talk page of MOS:DAB or WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My disagreement is not with the guidelines, but with your application of them. The articles in question have not been created, and including them on DAB pages was not supported by those guidelines...until you added links in order to qualify them under MOS:DABRL. If you don't intend to create the articles, creating redlinks for them and then adding them to dab pages does not strike me as either "following guidelines" or improving the encyclopedia. My purpose here was to suggest a way that would do both of those things. Frank  &#124;  talk  18:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

To the best of my recollection, they all did have redlinks already, but these were to 'Bob Grove' or 'Groves' without a disambiguator in brackets. Therefore they showed up in those articles as blue links, and redirected to the disambiguation page for all those with the name Robert Grove or similar. Thus, they were misleading, so I added disambiguators in brackets, so it was clear they had no article. Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's exactly my point - you created redlinks, and then added them to a disambiguation pages, citing MOS:DABRL as the reason for restoring them to the disambiguation pages when I removed them. It's not clear that those articles will ever exist, and the only support for putting them on the dab pages is the links you created. Frank  &#124;  talk  13:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't create links to them - links done wrongly already existed, I amended them. The guidelines are clear that they are valid. Boleyn (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of André Corriveau (doctor)


A tag has been placed on André Corriveau (doctor) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". 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 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. Pichpich (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, unfortunately I can't recreate it because it is a copyright violation from and WP can't host it anywhere.  But I can easily make you feel better because according to your edit summary when you created the article you had copied it from misplaced text on a disambiguation page, and that it wasn't your own work. From here, it seems. Sorry for not seeing the full story and noting it under that talkpage notification from another editor; in the future, though, it is probably a good idea to do a quick search to see whether there are any problems with the text you are transferring. Thanks for seeking to clarify this. --Slp1 (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for your help. Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Um...

 * How is this being rude?  Erpert  Who is this guy? 05:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I realised afterwards that it was an overreaction to describe it as rude. However, I found 'Please pay attention' rude at the time, especially as the edit was correct. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Toni Baker


Hello, Boleyn. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Toni Baker".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (📧) 08:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Deir ez-Zor insurgency (2019)
Thanks for moving it to a "Draft". I personally thought the material was unsourced (or unverifiably sourced) and non-notable and shouldn't deserve an article, but another editor was insisting on mixing the material (sourced only to twitter) into an article with a totally different subject, so to try and compromise with him I created a totally new article with the material for him to expand on. Which he didn't. So, as far as I am concerned, the material can get deleted if the community thinks it should (and looking at Wikipedia's policy I think it should). Thanks again! EkoGraf (talk) 11:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Boleyn (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Celeb Gogglebox
what do you recommend I do to this article? I was hoping after a cerate this then more experienced people on wiki can improve it.--Slindsell15 (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC) , thanks for your work on this. How do you feel it meets WP:BCAST or WP:GNG? At the moment, it's unclear. Other editors can still work on it in draftspace, it's just it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in an encyclopaedia at this time. Boleyn (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019


Hello ,

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important. Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR. The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever. NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so  you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations. Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for  the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging. Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway. School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
 * WMF at work on NPP Improvements
 * QUALITY of REVIEWING
 * Backlog
 * Move to draft
 * Notifying users
 * PERM
 * Other news

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost. Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Re: Fathi Al-Majbari
The article Fathi Al-Majbari is fully sourced, if I'm not mistaken it was checked by another editor when I first made it. Go back through the article history and look at the original version I made. Some other person edited the article for some inexplicable reason and removed almost everything I wrote.

It would have been great if you could have checked the history and just undone this other guy's edits before moving the article. Prince Hubris (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right, that's my error, now amended. Thanks for your work on this, . Boleyn (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:LISTVERIFY
I don't appreciate the charge of edit warring. The first revert was of a bold page move after a discussion where multiple editors disagreed with the move and the second was asking you to specify what items you think are not fit for inclusion. I recommend you read WP:LISTVERIFY as there is no reason to add inline citations for list items that are obviously appropriate for inclusion. So a general unreferenced tag is not helpful because it doesn't make clear what items are not obviously appropriate for a page on canon law. I'd ask that you actually read the page and raise concerns that are helpful rather than robotically placing a tag with no critical thought. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 18:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it needed inline citations - I tagged it as unreferenced, which it is. Boleyn (talk) 06:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Wraith: The Great War
Hello, there. I think you may be making a faulty assumption of you believe there is a consensus to send non-BLP stubs away from mainspace because they are not yet sourced. The convention has been to add sourcing templates, rather than sending articles to Draft or placing redirects. If you feel strongly that this consensus needs to change, we have RfC processes for that. :) Newimpartial (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi,, I do not believe that all stubs should be moved from mainspace if unreferenced, neither do I do that without looking at different options. If I feel lack of references is the only concern, it would be tagged. This one had been clearly unreferenced for some time, and various editors had raised serious concerns about it, as there is no indication of why it meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Please submit at any time that's clear in the article.

Please also see the info in the New Page Patrol newsletter below: ''Move to draft NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.''

I didn't leave a clear enough edit summary and I apologise for that. Thanks for your work on this, Boleyn (talk) 06:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Boleyn. Thanks for the clarification. I would like to gently remind you that NPP is a project, not a policy, and that not everyone at WP agrees with its approaches and methods. This stub was five years old at the time of draftification, and only one other editor (the one placing the Bold redirect) had "serious concerns" about it (the unreferenced template does not represent "serious concern" in the case of non-BLP articles).
 * I appreciate that your goal in participating with NPR is to improve the quality of WP's articles, but do try to keep in mind that not all editors appreciate the deletionist paradigm that NPP and AFC tend to presuppose within their projects. Newimpartial (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am well aware that NPP is a project. The article, as it stood, was considered new, and there had been several editors with different concerns and moving it in different shapes, including redirecting. We'll have to agree to disagree on whether an unreferenced article is a 'serious concern' - it's not an exclusive reason for draftification or deletion but I would consider it a serious concern. It was moved to draft to prevent deletion/overwriting. There are a lot of assumptions about me, my motivations and my editing in your messages that I don't agree with, but I thank you for your work on Wikipedia and will bear in mind your opinions. Boleyn (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello again. Apart from my explicit assumption about possible belief in a consensus to send unreferenced stubs out of mainspace (which was a kind of Occam's razor of AGF), I don't actually think I have made any assumptions about your individual editing or motivations. I have made evidence-based judgements about the approaches, methods, and biases of NPP as a project, but I am not imputing them to you personally so you should not take it that way.
 * I will point out again that, outside of NPP, most editors do not regard 5-year-old stubs as "new", and reviewing the page histories I still only see one other editor raising what they presumably regarded as a "serious concern". My own previous interaction with the article was to place a stub tag, and it is my belief that tagging and templating was the policy-compliant course in this case. Certainly AfD nominations require WP:BEFORE, and the subject of this article would pass any competently performed and policy-compliant BEFORE exercise. So that's what the issues look like from my perspective, as you say, to "bear in mind". Newimpartial (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hasse–Schmidt derivation
Please see Parenthetical referencing and WP:CITEVAR. The article Hasse–Schmidt derivation is well-referenced in most of its sections. Only the definitions section is missing inline citations. You should not equate inline citations with footnotes; parenthetical referencing is an equally acceptable citation style. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Gratitude
Hello Boleyn, thanks for your edits too. It's nice having fellow users adding their contribution in this article. GiofanniRahman (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, and as it's now reviewed it will be indexed by Google very soon. Boleyn (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

One new one I found for a DAB
Here Gene Morgan, there was 2 others I found recently, but I can't remember what, I might be able to find them later. Wgolf (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

More: Roy Payne and Ralph Jones. Wgolf (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Well here is another one Frank Wells. Wgolf (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And another-Carl Albrecht. Wgolf (talk) 05:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Another one to add along with the one I mentioned last night-Percy Rodriguez, which has the case of Percy Rodríguez and Percy Rodriguez being listed as 2 different people. Wgolf (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I have proposed to move Carl Albrecht to a disambiguated title, and make that title the disambiguation page. bd2412  T 00:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)