User talk:Boleyn/Archive 35

Editor of the Week
User:Northern Antarctica submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * As a 6-year veteran editor with over a 150,000 edits, Boleyn has quietly been creating tons and tons of disambiguation pages. This is an important area of work, but it doesn't generally get much attention, so Boleyn is probably well overdue for a bit of recognition. After all, users who faithfully work to improve the encyclopedia — yet don't get very much of the limelight — are the people that this award was designed for.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Thanks again for your efforts! ```Buster Seven   Talk  13:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Northern Antarctica and User:Buster7. It is very, very much appreciated. Boleyn (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you! Very much appreciated. Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Your advice please...
Hello!

You are the disambiguation guru. It used to be piped links were discouraged on disambiguations pages. That made sense to me. Is that still what is recommended? HMS Toronto has several piped links. Should I unpipe them?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Geo Swan, I hope you're well. Yes, WP:PIPING is still discouraged, so that readers can see the real link and have less chance of ending up at a disambiguation page again by mistake, and can more easily go directly to the right page. On the page you mentioned, some of the links need a blue link on their line (WP:DDD). Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for the advice. Geo Swan (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks,, that's very much appreciated. Boleyn (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
This wiki-kitten is here to thank you for taking part in my survey.

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC) 

A kitten for you!
Thanks for what you do around here. Your work is noticed and appreciated.

Rosiestep (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC) 

A DAB policy question
Since you are the DAB Page Queen, I wonder if you could answer a question for me. While disambiguating links, I often stop to edit the dab pages themselves. When I ran across one that added foreign text to some of the links, I removed the non-English characters, thinking it was an anomaly. But now I've found another such page, and it made me wonder if I was too hasty on the earlier edit. MOS:DAB had nothing to say about it. Is there any established policy about having non-English names or words on dab pages? How do you handle these? TIA — Gorthian (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi,. I don't like these, but I don't always remove them. I think the most relevant part of MOS:D for them is MOS:DABENTRY: ''Keep the description associated with a link 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.'' Often it is perfectly clear what the difference is and the translation is superfluous. However, with languages I don't understand, I err on the side of being generous when deciding whether it is definitely unneeded. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughtful response; that's very helpful. — Gorthian (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks,, much appreciated! Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks,, that's much appreciated. Thank you for your work in this area too - I can't belong CAT:NN has an almost 9 year backlog now, but at least we can try to resolve the older tags. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Much appreciated, ! Boleyn (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar of diligence for you!
Thank you, I really appreciate that! If you come across any like these, feel free to mention them on my talk page and I'll see if I can improve them. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you! I appreciate that, as I've done a crazy number of them, but it's brilliant to see the SvG article cleanup continuing at such a pace. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks you, that's very kind. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

NPP Barnstar
Thanks,, I really appreciate that, and also appreciate your hard work on the project. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 05:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you,, I appreciate that. I've enjoyed reviewing your articles because I know I'm likely to be able to swiftly tick them off as they are already good. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you! I deliberately sought yours out as they were so easy to review, few editors start articles so well (myself included). Once you've created a few more and met the threshold, I can nominate you for autopatrol rights, so it's flagged up that yours are good enough that they don't need a reviewer. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow, Thanks so much again! Mr leroy playpus (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you,. Boleyn (talk) 04:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've already given you a barnstar above, but I do want to thank you, especially after the crap at the village pump and the AfD that followed. Currently the ACTRIAL conversation is consuming time that I would prefer to spend patrolling, so I am even more grateful for the work you are doing to shrink the backlog. You really are a credit to our project. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks,. I hate all that kind of negativity, but I suppose I edit so much that at some point someone will object to one of my edits. I'm glad there's so much support for the article at AfD. Coming to the project at this stage, I'm not too jaded by the backlog and not that interested in whether policies are changed, but it will be interesting to see what difference ACTRIAL will make and then hopefully the focus can get back to editing. Thanks again for your kindness, Boleyn (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks for your review.

Rabins Sharma Lamichhane (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC) 

Thanks, ! Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks,. Boleyn (talk) 07:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Jhoven Sulla (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Your welcome.

Reviewer Barnstar for you!
Thank you, much appreciated!I've enjoyed reviewing them,. Boleyn (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

thanks!
You're welcome,, you were actually on my list to double-check you had enough page creations before I nominated you, among the numerous new pages, yours stood out as showing you knew what you were doing. I'm glad you were given the right, it's given quite sparingly. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Henry Dundas
Hi Boleyn, Why did you revert my edits to the Henry Dundas disambig page? Two separate issues: firstly, your lead Henry Dundas is only one among four individuals by that name and an overview/classification sentence would seem to be in order. Secondly, although this is currently a person disambig page, it doesn't have to be, and probably shouldn't be. The name occurs in other contexts, in this case as the name of one of several ships. It is common for disambig pages to list several categories of appearances of a name or term. Acad Ronin (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

, I believe I gave clear edit summaries, pointing to MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABPRIMARY. Boleyn (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The policies you mentioned specifically permit groupings/categories of uses. The category of "Individuals", with the four names in any order you wish, can and should be the first category. That does not preclude a second category of "Ship". Why throw away information that others may find useful? Acad Ronin (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you've read them properly,. I did not object to you adding a ship, I wrote that I removed it per MOS:DABRL. As for the people, it's not in any order I wish, it's about the guidelines, which were developed by community consensus. Boleyn (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

OK. So, when I create the Henry Dundas article you will not object to me adding to the Henry Dundas disambig page, together with two other vessels with the same name that I will not red link because I don't anticipate writing up what would be stubby articles for them? Acad Ronin (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

, If they have an article or meet MOS:DABMENTION, and are on a topic called 'Henry Dundas', then they belong on the disambiguation page. They don't even need a redlink, if they meet MOS:DABMENTION. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou for making Wikipedia better
I just wanted to thank you for nominating articles on non-notable individuals for deletion. I know how doing this needed cleanup can often be a thankless job that gets no notice except when you step on the turf of someone with vested interest in the status quo of keeping articles on non-notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Being non-notable is not by itself an argument for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, I particularly appreciate that coming from you. I'm working through those which have been tagged as non-notable for 9 years, some of which are quite tricky to judge. , of course there are WP:ATDs some of the time, and I don't think Johnpacklambert implied otherwise. Boleyn (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

NPR Gold Award
Wow, I hadn't realised it was that many. Thanks,, as ever your kind words and support are much appreciated. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Have you ever thought about acquiring one of these? You should give it serious consideration, in my view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks,, I really appreciate the suggestion. I think I marked my cards on that one several years ago by creating a lot of low-quality sub-stubs and getting involved in disputes, which I look back at and can't believe I got emotional about it. I think I would have to show a more level head (which, bizarrely, I definitely have in real life) and prove myself a better article creator for a long time before I could consider it. There are tools I could make good use of, but overall I enjoy being a dedicated WP:WIKIGNOME. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi
Just dropping by to express my admiration for your patience in working with so many new editors despite of many of them not being able to communicate effectively. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 06:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi,, thank you, there do seem to be a lot at the moment, but I really appreciate your swift action to help end the disruptive editing. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

給您的星章！
Thanks, ! Boleyn (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks, ! Much appreciated. Boleyn (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!


Happy Halloween!

Hello Boleyn: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  — usernamekiran (talk)   21:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

And to you, ! Boleyn (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Boleyn. Thanks a lot for reviewing my new pages. I appreciate your work on Wikipedia. You are only Wikipedian user that appreciate other user for their contributions. (ALIwaince (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC))  ALIwaince (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I know other editors send me messages of appreciation and improve articles I've created, and it is always good to feel supported by others. Thanks for adding to Wikipedia. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Please Stop Proposing Pages for Deletion
I see that you are proposing to delete one of my pages (Little bets) because of vague "notability" concerns. You seem to have found out about it because I have been creating a flurry of electoral district pages for the upcoming Ontario provincial election. So now my other pages are being targeted.

Deletionists like you are the biggest problem with Wikipedia today. Instead of adding useful content, or at least editing, you target pages created by newby users for deletion. Often the pages are indeed poorly written, but the solution is to make them better, not delete them. This is one of the reasons I am reluctant to contribute to Wikipedia; I worry that many of my contributions will be undone by people like you if I don't meet some bureaucratic rule (e.g. Notability or Verifiability). I prefer OpenStreetMap, which is much more relaxed about both issues (although I am concerned about mass deletions there as well).

I joined Wikipedia in part to counter deletionists; I have been personally affected by a deleted article on Wikipedia that prevented me from getting information I was looking for.

p.s. I would send this by private message, but Wikipedia does not appear to have that capability.

Mparrault (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

, I'm sorry that you feel you have had a poor experience in the past, where the information you were looking for was not on Wikipedia. Although this encyclopaedia may not have everything everyone is looking for, I hope you were able to get what you needed via a search engine. I hope that the links in my nomination for deletion give you clear information on my concerns, rather than leaving it feeling vague. This has been prodded, which means that you can delete the proposed deletion at any time. It then may lead on to a full discussion on its notability, where a consensus can be reached.

I reviewed several articles you had written on electoral districts. Good job, they were needed pages, well-written and I enjoyed reviewing them. I actually found out about all the pages because I review for WP:New Page Patrol, and these were all new pages awaiting review. There was no targeting, and no deletionism. The vast majority of new pages I come across are ticked off, sometimes with tags indicating how they can be improved. I only tag a small percentage for deletion, and that is because of serious concerns. If the pages are notable, then the solution is definitely to make them better. If they are not, then this is an encyclopaedia and they may be tagged for deletion. I haven't heard of OpenStreetMap before, but it sounds worth checking out. It is indeed frustrating when other editors feel your contributions, which you worked hard on, don't meet the criteria the community has agreed on. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

, I may have been a bit too personal in my previous post; almost all of your editing is useful, and many new pages probably have very little useful content. I obviously don't agree with Notability, but there is no need to rehash that debate. As for targeting, it seems like the problem is with New pages patrol. I suspect that a user creating a flurry of new pages causes its algorithm to prioritize all pages ever created by that user for review (e.g. to target that user). In my case, I created Little bets months ago, so there is no way that it is a coincidence that it is just being reviewed now. Mparrault (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

, I didn't mean to imply it was a coincidence, but there was no intention to 'target' in a deletionist or derogatory way, the opposite actually. I used the filter so I could review all of yours one after the other because it is best to review similar ones together, and they were also good articles I was enjoying reviewing. Sorry I wasn't clear. Boleyn (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Rude Editor
It seems as the other edits on dramas do not have any references and you are very rude in handling matters. It seems like I have nothing to talk to you. I could have blocked you.
 * Hello,, thanks for responding to my message. I am sorry if I came across as rude - however I have sent you 17 messages over the last year, all of which you have not responded to, and have just deleted from your page. 17! WP:Communication is required on Wikipedia, you can't just refuse to discuss an issue as important as many, many messages asking you to add sources to articles you create. There are indeed many unreferenced, or poorly referenced, articles on Wikipedia - that doesn't mean that it's OK to add more. It is relatively easy when creating an article to add where you got your information from, but very difficult to do this when someone else created the article. Please look at WP:V. If you create further unreferenced articles, I will initiate an WP:ANI, you have been asked so many times. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks for all, Boleyn, you are doing a great job! Regards Sugardating (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks,, I've enjoyed reviewing your articles. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks,, I really appreciate your message and thank you for creating so many articles. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Patrol thanks you!
Thanks you very much,, much appreciated! :) Boleyn (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Quick question
about Anula Karunathilaka - do you know how that article made it into mainspace? Was there a particular reason you didn't move it into Draft space and just tagged it instead? Atsme 📞📧 00:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi,. The article had only been created about 10 minutes when I came across it, so I tagged it but didn't review it and added it to my watchlist to check in a few hours when the creator should have been finished. I didn't want to jump down the creator's throat if they were in the process of adding their sources - but it seems they weren't, or not very quickly anyway. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you...I just wanted to make sure I wasn't stepping on any toes. Atsme 📞📧 06:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't worry about that, I would never object to someone on NPP coming to a different conclusion. In general, if I'm unsure or haven't finished it, I just won't mark it as reviewed. Thanks for your work on this, Boleyn (talk) 06:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Assistance in Editing Harris Academy Orpington Page
If you can assist in the adding of the sources on the Harris Academy Orpington page, I would appreciate it. Regards, MO8hwe.

Thanks,, I'm happy to look it over. Where did you get the information in the article so far? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you just look over the page to make sure the references I have added are okay? The references include Ofsted, a Sutton Trust report and a Bromley Times article. Regards, MO8hwe.

Done, that's all fine,. I've reviewed it so it will be indexed by Google soon too. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance !

Van Cutsem
Yes, I can source that this is a surname from the Low Countries, but it seems like overkill since this is so patently a Dutch name. Eustachiusz (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi,, thanks for agreeing to add a source. The reason all articles (including surname pages) should have sources is that that what is basic knowledge to one person, to another, in a different part of the world, it wouldn't be. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Danube Park
I don't particularly mind that you've unreviewed it, but can you please explain the issue? The template didn't really help and I don't see that you noted any issue with Danube Park, which was created by an experienced editor. Thanks StarM 21:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi,, sorry for causing confusion. I clicked it as reviewed, then realised it already was and I'd unreviewed it, so immediately clicked it as reviewed again. There's no way I know of for seeing who had reviewed it so I could undo any automatic message that had been sent. Boleyn (talk) 09:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. I'm not super involved with reviewing, but if you are you might want to let whoever handles this template know that it could be way more informative. Glad to know I hadn't accidentally done something wrong. Thanks! <b style="font-family:Verdana; color:#6633FF;">StarM</b> 19:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)