User talk:Boleyn/Archive 9

Robert Smith
Please stop removing Robert Melville Smith from Robert Smith. Just because the page was deleted at some point in the past does not mean it should be removed. It fits the other criteria for inclusion and he is a notable enough person to warrant an article. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  22:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Thomas Bacon (Justice of the Common Pleas)


The article Thomas Bacon (Justice of the Common Pleas) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * There is less information about Bacon in this poorly-sourced stub than in the general article on Justice of the Common Pleas

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. PamD (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

pdiff
Hi Boleyn, could you explain why pdiff needs to be cleaned up? It seems to be a fine disambig page for a few topics. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I've just responded in detail on pdiff's Talk pg, there's a few ways it doesn't meet the guidelines. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

John Gascoigne
Hi, Your man here is not the same one who was redlinked in George Gascoigne! (Wrong century). Could you sort them out? Thanks. PamD (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Earl of Surrey
Hi - was it an oversight to delete a batch of interwiki links from this article? I think so, but I wanted to check with you. Cheers -- BPMullins | Talk 23:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, that was just a mistake. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 06:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Steven Bennett
I have nominated Steven Bennett, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Steven Bennett. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Chris (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I created this as a redirect to a disambiguation page, so I have nothing to do with it now being an article, that was created by an anon. I agree with your nomination of it, although I think it may be best to revert the article and make it a redirect again. Best wishes, Boleyn3 (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry about that. I over-twinkled....Chris (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Luther Johnson
I think things got confused when I moved Luther Johnson to Luther Alexander Johnson. I have no problem with your recent edit. It's just been a strange mix-up. If that page serves no purpose, it probably should be deleted. Maile66 (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Thomas Fanshawe


The article Thomas Fanshawe has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced sub-stub, no evidence of any possibility of expansion. This is not an article, it is a list entry.

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. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Awdeley


The article John Awdeley has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced sub-stub, no evidence of any possibility of expansion. This is not an article, it is a list entry.

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. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Hales (MP for Lancaster)


The article John Hales (MP for Lancaster) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced sub-stub, no evidence of any possibility of expansion. This is not an article, it is a list entry.

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. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of William Fleetwood (MP for Lancaster)


The article William Fleetwood (MP for Lancaster) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced sub-stub, no evidence of any possibility of expansion. This is not an article, it is a list entry.

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. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Russell (Westminster MP)


The article John Russell (Westminster MP) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced sub-stub, no evidence of any possibility of expansion. This is not an article, it is a list entry.

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. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of George Blagge


The article George Blagge has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced sub-stub, no evidence of any possibility of expansion. This is not an article, it is a list entry.

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. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lewis Gordon, 3rd Marquess of Huntly


The article Lewis Gordon, 3rd Marquess of Huntly has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced sub-stub, no evidence of any possibility of expansion. This is not an article, it is a list entry.

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. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Robert Carnegie, 3rd Earl of Southesk


The article Robert Carnegie, 3rd Earl of Southesk has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced sub-stub, no evidence of any possibility of expansion. This is not an article, it is a list entry.

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. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Thomas Lewis (of Harpton)
I have nominated Thomas Lewis (of Harpton), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Thomas Lewis (of Harpton). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Fowke


The article John Fowke has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced sub-stub, no evidence of any possibility of expansion. This is not an article, it is a list entry.

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. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of William Thompson (London)


The article William Thompson (London) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced sub-stub, no evidence of any possibility of expansion. This is not an article, it is a list entry.

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. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Lee (1695–1761)


The article John Lee (1695–1761) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced sub-stub, no evidence of any possibility of expansion. This is not an article, it is a list entry.

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. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Zachariah Locke


The article Zachariah Locke has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced sub-stub, no evidence of any possibility of expansion. This is not an article, it is a list entry.

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. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of William Mayhew


The article William Mayhew has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced sub-stub, no evidence of any possibility of expansion. This is not an article, it is a list entry.

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. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Richard Yarward


The article Richard Yarward has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced sub-stub, no evidence of any possibility of expansion. This is not an article, it is a list entry.

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. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Robert Bromfield


The article Robert Bromfield has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced sub-stub, no evidence of any possibility of expansion. This is not an article, it is a list entry.

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. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of George Rivers


The article George Rivers has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced sub-stub, no evidence of any possibility of expansion. This is not an article, it is a list entry.

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. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sub-stubs
Creating new articles is a great thing, and they can start off as a stub. But a well-formed stub article some references or external links, and some attempt at appropriate categorisation.

It seems that you have been creating a lot of sub-stub articles on British politicians which say nothing at all about them except what is already available in lists, and in most cases even less information than is in those lists.

Here are some examples from May 2010:


 * William Fanshawe
 * John Hagan Jenkins
 * Gerald Fitzroy Hohler
 * Thomas Fanshawe
 * John Awdeley
 * John Hales (MP for Lancaster)
 * William Fleetwood (MP for Lancaster)
 * John Russell (Westminster MP)
 * Sir John Reid, 2nd Baronet
 * George Blagge
 * Lewis Gordon, 3rd Marquess of Huntly
 * Robert Carnegie, 3rd Earl of Southesk
 * Thomas Lewis (1690-1777)
 * Thomas Lewis (Welsh politician)
 * John Fowke
 * William Thompson (London)
 * John Lee (1695–1761)
 * John Mark Frederick Smith
 * Leicester Viney Vernon
 * Lewis Vivian Loyd
 * Robert Vaughan Gower
 * Zachariah Locke
 * William Mayhew
 * Robert Bromfield
 * Richard Yarward
 * George Rivers

I think that all of these articles are either on British nobleman or British Members of Parliament, who are inherently notable (see WP:POLITICIAN) ... but the fact that a topic is notable does NOT make it useful to create one-line sub-stub articles. Those just waste the time of readers, who would be better off at the constituency article, which provides more info on each individual and some context.

To take just one fairly typical example, the article Robert Vaughan Gower. Look at the state of it after your last edit:
 * 1) No mention of when he was MP for those constituencies
 * 2) No mention of what party he represented
 * 3) No categories other than those applied by a stub tag
 * 4) No dates of birth or death
 * No references
 * The stub tag used was UK-politician-stub. More specific stub-tags are available: UK-MP-stub, or better still Conservative-UK-MP-stub (since Robert Vaughan Gower was a Conservative)

Items 1 and 2 are all in the constituency article to which you linked, and were there when you created the aricle (see permalink). Why not include them?

Finding a few appropriate categories would not take long, and would help other editors to find these articles and expand them.

But the lack of sources really surprises me. If you had a source,, why not mention it in the article? ... and if you didn't have a source, why create the articles? It looks like you were relying on links in wikipedia articles, but wikipedia is not a reliable source.

When I came across this, I thought that it was done in a burst of editing last month, so I PRODded the articles where I can see no possibility of expansion, and bookmarked the rest to expand myself (I have some good sources on UK MPs).

But now I see that you are still creating unreferenced sub-stubs, such as Sir William Thomas, 1st Baronet. Please stop this: verifiability is one of the 5 pillars of wikipedia, and unreferenced sub-stubs don't meet the inclusion criteria ... and one-line articles are not [[WP:Stub|stubs].

You clearly have an interest in historical biographies, so why not find some reliable sources and create articles which are properly referenced and say more about the person than the bare fact that they existed? If you take a bit of time to create well-formed articles, even if they are stubs, you'll find that that they are are helpful to readers and editors, and provide a basis for further expansion. That does take more time than pasting in one line of text and pressing the save button, but while you have done a lot of quantity, a bit more quality really is needed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And here is another recent bad one, created yesterday: James Christopher Flynn. Unsourced, uncategorised, with less info than is available in the constituency article ... and even though the article contains only 17 words, one of the two sentences is simply wrong: Flynn was NOT a "British" politician -- he was an Irish Nationalist.
 * Please stop this. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And two more pointless sub-stubs: Sir Robert William Newman, 1st Baronet and Robert Newman, 1st Baron Mamhead. Both are unsourced, uncategorised, one-liners.  Were they were created to allow you to get rid of the redlinks in the disambiguation page at Robert Newman, as you did in this edit???? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * James Christopher Flynn was a member of the British parliament when all of Ireland was British, so he was both a British politician and an Irish nationalist.--Charles (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please check your facts. Flynn was never a member of a "British parliament". He was a member of the Parliament of a country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the country which was created by the Act of Union 1800. The 3rd Article of the Act of Union says That it be the third article of union, that the said  united kingdom  be represented in one and the same parliament, to be stiled “The parliament of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”.. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Thomas Fox (1622–1666)


The article Thomas Fox (1622–1666) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced sub-stub, no evidence of any possibility of expansion. This is not an article, it is a list entry.

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. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Lane (MP)


The article John Lane (MP) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced sub-stub, no evidence of any possibility of expansion. This is not an article, it is a list entry.

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. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Boleyn, I am sorry that you have ignored my efforts to discuss the problems with your editing, and have preferred the disruptive approach of making no effort whatsoever to improve these unsourced, uncategorised, one-line articles until they were taken to AFD. That is a waste of the time and energy of other editors, and I won't bother doing it again.

Having re-checked the speedy deletion criteria, I see that WP:CSD permits the speedy deletion of articles which simply duplicate existing content, and that's exactly what your sub-stubs do. So in future, I will delete them on sight per WP:CSD ... and I probably won't bother trying to discuss it with you, since you don't respond. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is three hours since your first message (which I didn't see straight away, as I wasn't online), so I don't think it's far to say I don't respond to messages. I usually also try to think things through from the other person's viewpoint as well before responding, so I rarely fire back a response in seconds. These entries meet WP:POLITICIAN and are therefore notable. It doesn't seem like the best use of your time to nominate these for deletion, when they can be expanded. All have multiple mentions on a Google search. I have expanded all the articles nominated for AfD. Without expert input, they will remain stubs, but they no longer simply duplicate information elsewhere on WP. Best wishes, Boleyn3 (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * After you saw my message, you had plenty of time to do lots of editing, log in and out of your various accounts at least four times, remove all the PRODs, post at AFD, and edit the articles ... and delete the reminder notices I posted to your other talk page. If you wanted time to think, you could simply have posted "I'm thinking about it" and stayed off that sort of editing until you'd finished thinking .... but instead you ignored what I had written and proceeded as before.
 * Anyway, I'll repeat what I said above: if I find any further sub-stubs which simply duplicate list entries, I will delete them on sight per WP:CSD. That applies to nearly all of the articles listed above.
 * Of course, I will not delete a genuine stub article. But the likes of this just says less than the of a list-entry in the constituency article, and any more rubbish like that will be speedily-deleted without warning, and probably without notification. I see no evidence that you did any research or any effort to look for sources for any of these articles until I AFDed a few. You have been busy creating articles with so little care or thought that you couldn't be arsed to even pipe a link to hide a disambiguator, or add any categories or make any effort to look for sources; it seem that you simply cop-pasted from disambiguation pages and clicked save. If that's all the effort you put in, then don't expect these additions to your articles I created list to stay ... because they are not articles. Speedy deletion takes very little of my time: almost as little as it took you to splat-paste the text used to create these useless one-liners!
 * Oh, and my tone probably sounds uncivil. That's because after a few hours of trying to open a discussion with you while you proceeded to ignore me, I'm rather fed up with your rudeness.  I don't know whether you are trying to game the system or what exactly you are trying to achieve, but it's very tedious to encounter your trademark combination of ignore-requests-to-talk-and-keeping-on-doing-what-the-other-person-objects-to ... but I got a solution now. It's not at all the sort of solution I'd like, but since you either unable or unwilling to try to understand that this is not an article, speedy deletion-on-sight is the lesat-worst option. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

PS I see that you posted here as. That's the 3rd account you have used this morning, and at least the 5th time you have logged out of one ID and logged in as another. This random switching of accounts is disruptive. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I really don't feel that it's me who is guilty of rudeness. After receiving your message, I did not spend my time continuing to create short articles, I went back to them and made efforts to reference and improve them. As for editing from different accounts, every morning I log in and check my watchlists, making edits where I think they are needed. Once I saw that you had nominated some articles for deletion, I of course checked my watchlists again. My sole aims are to create articles on notable people and to edit existing pages so they fit the guidelines and are easy to get information from. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want to create articles, then create articles -- not pointless splat-pasted one-line factoids with no categories and no sources.
 * And if you don't think it's rude to studiously ignore requests to discuss a problem, then I can't explain that to you. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Multiple accounts
As far as I can see, you use of multiple accounts does not conform to the policy at WP:MULTIPLE. You are using different accounts to edit the same set of articles, and are apparently switching between them at random.

I have therefore blocked User:Boleyn2 and User:Boleyn3. You are of course free to continue editing under your main account, User:Boleyn. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been investigated twice before (details on my Talk page archives 5 and 8) and found not to be the case. I have not deliberately edited articles with different log-ins, because when I make this mistake it mucks up my watchlist, as well as having a slight chance of confusing others. I have been very clear on my user page and my Talk page that I am one person and that it also reflected in the almost identical usernames; I don't feel there's a significant chance of anyone being confused. It seems to me extremely unfair to block here. Boleyn (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You have indeed been quite open about the existence of the other accounts, so I make no suggestion that there was any attempt at troublesome sockpuppetry, and I'm happy to accept that you used the difft accounts in transparent good faith. That's why your main account is not blocked, as it woulkd be for a sockpuppeteer: you can still edit, without restrictions.
 * However, the effect of your multiple accounts had some similarities to that of a sockuppet, in that it made it harder for other editors to work collaboratively with you.
 * One possible unintended effect of closing the other two accounts is that your watchlist may be split over the other accounts. If that is a concern, then I am happy to help you to merge the three watchlists. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

James Christopher Flynn again
You deleted my earlier message about James Christopher Flynn MP, in which I noted that you had re-created the article and repeated the false assertion that he was British, despite that error having been pointed out to you. You deleted that message, describing it as "character assassination".

Having corrected the mis-labelling of Flynn as British, I then checked the other facts against my reference books .... and found that the article as you left it was wrong on the other major point: you wrote that he was MP for West Cork, whereas he was actually MP for North Cork. That didn't require specialist sources; it's clearly written in the two references you cited:,.

I have now corrected and expanded the article ... and I'm wondering which was worse: you creating pointless, unreferenced, one-line, sub-stub articles, or you creating a referenced stub where there two major facts were both wrong and contradicted by the references you supplied?

Either way, you seem to be relying on other editors to clean up the mess. :( -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Restored earlier message from Brownhairedgirl:

James Christopher Flynn
-		 -	Just what on earth are you doing? -		 -	You re-created the article on James Christopher Flynn, and this time you did add a few references. But despite me pointing out to you above that he is Irish, you re-created the article with the untruth that he was "British". The man was an Irish nationalist, for goodness sake: calling him "British" is like calling Ronald Reagan a communist. -		 -	What are you playing at? You seem determined to create articles, but you still seem unwilling to make basic efforts to try create even a halfway decent stub. I'd be happy to help you if you want help, but you seem to be unconcerned to get anything right, and right now your editing is just plain disruptive. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a wholly unnecessary response to one error. You pointed out, I believe, that he was 'both a British politician and Irish nationalist' or words to that effect. Describing him as a British politician is not 'playing at' anything. If you know more about the topic, please edit the article and wp will benefit from that. As for seeming 'unwilling to make basic efforts to create even a halfway decent stub', I have created articles on notable people, which on the whole have quickly developed into reasonable articles - which is an asset to Wikipedia. When you brought up your concerns about these articles, I expanded and referenced them. That's not being disruptive. And is it so that they don't come up as redlinks on disambiguation pages, that is often where I first noticed that they lacked an article and so created one. I don't see that as a bad thing. I really feel that as this is the second occasion in which you've sent me reams of rude messages and written nasty comments about me in edit summaries and AfDs, that this is a poor use of your time and that it is bullying; I am trying not to respond angrily to it. I hope you decide to stop. Boleyn (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm. You didn't read what I wrote: I did not say that 'both a British politician and Irish nationalist', or any words to that effect. It's all above, where you can re-read it if you want to, and I don't know why you invented a quote when you could just scroll up the page to see that I wrote something very different.
 * Anyway, that aside, we are finally getting somewhere: you acknowledge that this is all about removing redlinks from disambiguation pages.
 * That's not necessary. As you know, redlinks are permited on disambiguation pages per WP:DABRL, a guideline with which you should be very familiar since you (commendably) link to it so often in your edit summaries. If you want to create genuine stub articles, then please do so -- that's very useful -- but creating these abysmal sub-stubs merely to remove redlinks is a pointless exercise in solving a non-problem. It just creates more problems for others to tidy up after you.
 * What you have been doing in many cases is copy-pasting the text from the disambiguation pages and making it an article, with nothing else added except a stub tag, and nearly always an insufficiently specific one.
 * Yes, you are right about one thing: I did get angry with you, because your splattergun creation of inadequate sub-stubs to solve a non-problem has created a huge mess for other editors to clear up. I didn't just give you a terse warning at the start, or write angrily; I took the time to write to you at length explaining the problem, but instead of replying to it or even acknowledging it, you just went off removing PROD tags, switching back and forth between accounts making it harder track your edits. You ignored msgs to the talk pages of the other accounts; no response at all.  That's very rude.
 * That's the situation I got with you before. You don't reply, then wonder someone who has raised a problem becomes more strident ... but that's a situation of your own making, by not replying. If you discuss a disagreement as soon as it is raised, or even acknowledge it, then the air can be cleared quickly. My post above, which you say was "unnecessary", came when you had made two posts to the talk page, neither of which made any attempt to respond to the problems I had outlined earlier. Instead you re-created a sub-stub, repeating a simple problem already notified to you.  When someone goes to a lot of trouble to point out problems, and you simply ignore them, then what response do you expect?
 * Next time someone raises a problem with you, there's a simple way of dealing with it: respond to it promptly, rather than doing this passive-aggressive stuff of simply ignore what's been said and then complaining when your silence prompts further messages to you to become more strident.
 * However, this can all be wrapped up if you will simply agree to stop creating stubs just to remove redlinks from dab pages. If you don't know enough about the topic to write a halfway-decent stub (i.e. one with the appropriate stub tags, at least some relevant categories, and at least some more info than is contained in the dab page), and you don't want to put in the time to learn ... well that's fine: just don't create the stub. There's no deadline, and per WP:DABRL, the redlinks are perfectly acceptable so long as they are accompanied by a bluelink, which they were in the case of stubs you created.
 * That's all. Create stubs which add some content beyond the dab page entry (preferably verified, tho that's not a requirement for a stub) and carry enough metadata (categories, stub tags) to be findable by editors looking for that sort of stub ... or don't create them.
 * Is that OK with you? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Lateef Oladimeji Sanni
Just in case you didn't see this, the above article was created by cut/paste from the draft. MB 23:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Boleyn (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I recently edited a page for Sonny West, the songwriter. My username is atidwell0372. This is my 1st edit. My original submission is nowhere to be found, nor the work that was there prior to my edit. I was hoping you could offer why the page was declined so I can improve it? I know Mr. West and am working with him to try and complete the page originally started by his Daughter. Thank you kindly.Atidwell0372 (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry,, I missed this message. The article is at Draft:Sonny West (musician). All articles on living people need clear WP:INLINECITED WP:REFERENCES. It also read like it was written by someone connected to the subject, so would need some work on sounding more encyclopaedic, as well as evidence it meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. When you think you're finished, you can message me or submit via WP:AFC. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Thanks for reviewing List of ambassadors of Iran to Bahrain, Boleyn.

DGG has gone over this page again and marked it as unpatrolled. Their note is:

"the detail for some is too grat for a table; they may need separate articles"

Please contact DGG for any further query. Thanks.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

 DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lagganstown, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tipperary ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Lagganstown check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Lagganstown?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:2018–19 Veria F.C. season
Dear Boleyn, On April 15, 2019 you moved my 2018–19 Veria F.C. season to drafts as it lacked of sources as you mentioned. Since then I moved on and significantly expanded the whole article trying my best to do it an eligible/valid wiki article. I've submitted for review on May 7, 2019 but so far I had no news or any updates. Do you mind having a look over it? Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:2018%E2%80%9319_Veria_F.C._season

Hopefully it fits the criteria and it will finally get back on where it was. Thanks in advance.

All the best, PanosBonJovi (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello,, thanks for your hard work on this draft. It looks like it hasn't been submitted for review, are you sure it worked? The last I can see is the decline in April, but obviously you've worked since then. I don't know enough to overrule that decision, but if you check it has been submitted, hopefully it will be looked at again. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words and for taking the time to review my issue. Yes I’m pretty sure it’s awaiting for review since I pressed the review button and on the message on the draft (link above mentioned) says that This draft has been resubmitted and is currently awaiting re-review but so far I had no news on it.

Kind regards, PanosBonJovi (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Give you an "A"
Hey, good to hear from you. FYI, no need to inform after tagging, that's such a routine thing. Also, I've got all pages I create on my watchlist. Thx for the courtesy, tho. :D  TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  20:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18


Hello ,

, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:
 * WMF at work on NPP Improvements
 * Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
 * Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.
 * Reliable Sources for NPP

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.
 * Backlog drive coming soon


 * News
 * Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.


 * Discussions of interest
 * A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
 * There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
 * What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

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. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)