User talk:Boleyn/Archive 22

Paul DeMaine

I moved the Afd to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul DeMaine (2nd nomination) and made sure that the link on the article and the summary page reflected that.--ukexpat (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary boldface

It isn't really necessary to say "nominate for deletion" in a nomination at AFD. It's self-evident that you're nominating something for deletion, by the fact that you've made a deletion nomination. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Boleyn (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Closer

Hello again Boleyn long time no speak. Regrading AfD closers where you have withdrawn your nomination you should wait for the closer to remove the AfD template rather then doing it yourself with Steve Blame which I closed it didn't really matter but with I've Got the Joy Joy Joy Joy you should not have removed the template as somebody voted delete, so I've restored it. Thanks for bringing a number of articles who's notability was in question to our attention but please leave the template in place till the AfD is closed. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your message. Sorry about that. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Boleyn. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collage (singer).
Message added 19:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at the article and finding a reference. Boleyn (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iowa Film Critics Awards 2003

While I don't want to be overly bold and do it myself, I'd like to suggest that you amend the nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iowa Film Critics Awards 2003 to include/tag all of the articles in {{IFC Awards Chron}}. None of them even try to establish notability. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to do this. I have no objection to you being bold and adding it, or let me know how to. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle

Given the large number of articles your nominating I'd seriously consider using Twinkle (go to My Preferences then Gadgets, turn it on and Save) as it will do all four steps of AfD in one go & save you a lot of time. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that definitely makes it a lot easier. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibrahim Electric

I know you're nominating lots of articles today, which is good - many of them needed it. But do be careful; this one, for example, is not a BLP but a Danish music group. It's not much difference, and it doesn't impact the notability, but it's worth noting. I'd echo the twinkle comment, above, as twinkle will also (usually!) add the correct Categories to each AFD - and that saves me time on the backend, since I'm usually the one who sorts them. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it counted as a blp, as it is a biography of living people, just plural people, but I understand your point. Yes, I'm just trying out Twinkle now, and it's definitely easier. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Sometimes we redirect otherwise non-notable band members to the band, though I don't think that's what they did here. But it works either way. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was previous discussion on this, as part of the great BLP drive; see: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians/Archive_5#living.3Dyes_for_articles_about_musical_groups. AllyD (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see...

...that someone else is trying to clear the WP:BACKLOG. While it is not intended for it AfDs do encourage article improvement. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Over five years is an outrageous backlog, especially for something as important as notability. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

but remember its also outrageous to nominate things for notability if you have no idea whether they are notable! cheers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you checked my Talk page to see if that point had been made to me? Hammering someone who has already listened to the message isn't helpful, just dispiriting. Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I scanned your talk page in about 2 seconds, I felt that was sufficient to determine the point had not been made. Apparently I was wrong; I apologize.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent AfD blitz

Is this being done manually? How are you checking each one for notability before nominating? --Dweller (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following your nomination for AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Hogg I remind you that nominators are expected to carry out WP:Before before nominating an article for AfD. Provision exists to revoke the editing privileges of editors who show themselves to be unable to edit Wikipedia competently. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I would also support this call for caution. You have made at least two absolute blunders, and several more very poor nominations. St Anselm (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also see from these AfD stats that ten of your recent nominations have already been closed as speedy keep. It's great that you've been prepared to withdraw these nominations and facilitate the early closure, but it appears you are simply not doing the work required by WP:BEFORE. St Anselm (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller - Most completely manually, and now I've started using TWINKLE to help. I have also looked through the whole of Jan 2008 of CAT:NN and identified articles that meet notability guidelines before nominating anything for deletion, and then gone back through nominating the pages I felt didn't clear enough show notability for me to remove the notability tag.

Xxanthippe - I was aware of the principles of Before, but not some of the specific tips. Thanks for pointing it out, it will certainly make it easier for me to find information.

St Anselm - As far as I'm aware none have been closed as 'speedy keep', just some with 'nomination withdrawn' after additional information. I have been taking the time to monitor the discussions so that if I feel I should now withdraw my nomination after recent events, then I do so swiftly so the AfD doesn't drag on. I have been checking the articles carefully before nominating (checking through the whole category for the month I'm looking at, then going back and nominating for deletion any that I feel don't meet the guidelines). Boleyn (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The withdrawal of the nominator is the number 1 reason to have a speedy keep - see Wikipedia:Speedy keep. But Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Hogg, mentioned above, was closed before you withdrew. You are nominating articles for deletion based on a lack of notability - that means more than checking the article, it means at the very least a simple Google search. You have repeatedly missed truckloads of Google Scholar citations, and this wastes people's time. St Anselm (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D1 of WP:BEFORE says The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform. It certainly looks to me that you have failed to do this. St Anselm (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have understood your message and am acting accordingly. Boleyn (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your intentions are good, but nominating a batch of AFDs at once isn't a great idea. It's hard enough to get sufficient participation in some AfDs, so deluging the [uninvolved] editors with a semi-automated tidalwave of new nominations risks damaging the very thing you intended - the chance of improving articles. You're better off dripfeeding them through the system. --Dweller (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leonello Picco

Greetings Boleyn I put this on the articles talk page. "His large beetle (and other insect) collections and entomological notes are an important contribution to the development of this science in late 19th and early 20th century Italy. His name appears in contemporary works and in directories. He is not in the first rank but would easily make the second. Deletion of this article would remove a start point for further research. Please keep" Lionello Picco was one of a small band of entomologists whose work was the basis of our knowledge of the insect fauna of Italy.I can add a little to the page (memberships etc) and link to it but I don't have time to do much more.If I am ever back in Rome I will.Best regards Rpbert (Nash F.R.E.S.)aka Notafly (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting at the page and for looking to add improvements. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed what I can for now including another reference (Gaedicke) and linked to the article from Timeline of Entomology and Italian Entomological Society.If at sometime I expanded the last the info could be merged there but my inclination is to let him stand alone. Regards again and thanks for the prompt Notafly (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damir Nikšić

Something seems to have gone wrong when you tried to nominate this page for deletion. You added the template to the article and the deletion discussion to the log page, but you didn't actually create the discussion page itself. Hut 8.5 23:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using PROD?

I've seen your many AfD nominations lately and I noticed a good number of those articles probably you probably could of Proposed it for deletion instead of nominating it. Have you considered nomination less controversial articles for proposed deletion? Cheers, JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess essentially I always hope someone will come along and prove notability and save the article. I don't usually feel confident enough to use prod on articles outside my own area. However, I'll certainly consider it more now. Thanks for your advice, Boleyn (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not cleanup and insincere nominations are contrary to WP:POINT. I have the impression that you are not doing due diligence per WP:BEFORE and you indicate that you are not familiar with these topics. AFD is already overloaded with more topics than it can handle. Please slow down. Warden (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not continued nominating articles for AfD, I think I've nominated one in the last couple of days. I listened to the previous messages. I did not at any point make 'insincere nominations' nor try to use it for cleanup. Boleyn (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have belaboured the point but I didn't see the other sections above until later — it might help if you consolidate the similar sections here. Note that I have advertised the matter at WP:RSL to try and spread the work of responding to the AFDs. Warden (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for stopping. I've just deleted one of your noms as a speedy copyvio from an obvious place. This at least should have been checked. There's no point in clogging up AfD with things that can and should be summarily deleted by speedy. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Margaret Butler

I have now nominated Lady Margaret Butler for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Pat. I do understand your concerns about notability here, I think it's a borderline case. Boleyn (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Watson (disambiguation)

Hi — I saw you removed my speedy from James Watson (disambiguation). I probably didn't do something right, but here's what I'm trying to do:

1. Move James Watson to James Watson (disambiguation)

2. Make James Watson to a redirect to James D. Watson, as it's undoubtedly the primary topic, and hatnote it

But I cannot accomplish the move (#1) because a page already exists at the explicit dab page.

So I was trying to delete the dab page, then move the current James Watson page there.

Can you help or suggest a better way? Woodshed (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry about that. Because there was no edit summary, I thought you were deleting it because it was a redirect. {db-move} is your best bet if it's the clear primary. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)As there are so many other uses of "James Watson", I don't think this could be called a non-controversial move, so db-move would be inappropriate. If you think that the DNA man is the primary topic for the name, you should use Requested Move to propose a move of James Watson to James Watson (disambiguation), so it can be seen and discussed by other editors. The incoming links to the dab page at present (none of which should exist, of course) seem to be intended for a mix of DNA-man and others.

There's another question: is the DNA man best known as "James D. Watson", or just as "James Watson"? There might be an argument for moving his page to plain James Watson (if (a) he is the primary usage for the name and (b) the plain name without "D" is the name by which he is best known). To do this would need a multiple move request.

I've also just discovered {{RMassist}}, which is apparently preferred over {{db-move}} (news to me). It's for use in purely "technical moves" (eg moving something to a title currently occupied by a redirect with a history), totally uncontroversial (ie NOT for James Watson!) See Wikipedia:RM#Requesting_technical_moves. One advantage over {{db-move}} is that not all admins who do the requested delete then follow it up with the page move, while using the RMassist route it gets done every time. PamD 09:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the stalk! I appreciate the guiding hand. I've listed it as a requested move — see Talk:James Watson. (I didn't use RMassist, since you seemed to think this is a non-uncontroversial move. I tend to think it's pretty clear-cut, but that's why we have consensus, isn't it?) The page title question is an interesting one. The Google stats I posted there would certainly seem to support your idea — that "James Watson" would be a better title than "James D. Watson."

Thanks also to User:Boleyn for the info. Woodshed (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing AfD nominations

Hi Boleyn. In case you didn't know, in situations such as this one, where you withdrew a nomination with no delete !votes, you could simply close the AfD yourself. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be true but is against the letter of the rules at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. I've raised the issue at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Clarification_needed_about_Withdrawing_AfDs_-_two_points, along with the general topic of "How to Withdraw an AfD". PamD 10:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks for the suggestion, Automatic Strikeout, which I've been following for the last hour or so. Thanks for letting me know that could be a problem, Pam, I'll stop closing the AfDs. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to think WP:IAR would be okay here if it means undoing your own stuff. But withdrawing the nom has the same effect in the end. Anyway, I've reformatted quite a few of your NACs and thought you should know. No real issue, just need to be careful to include the whole AFD in those closure templates. All good! Cheers, Stalwart111 10:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems quite reasonable to close your own AfDs if no-one has supported them, but as you can see in what I've said at the AfD talk page there seems a lot of fuzziness around the whole area and gaps in the documentation. I hope we can get it clarified. I think perhaps the absolute statement about not closing your own nominations needs to be given this exception, but we also need a guide as to how to withdraw an AfD. PamD 11:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have supported your call for clarity/guidance. Very worthwhile, in my opinion. Stalwart111 11:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reply to a comment

It pains me to have read your last post in response to one of my comments...please slow down. I don't find it helpful that you think I have made comments about you, your edits are not you. Yet your bottom line is business as usual for the current AfDs. Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need to slow down - when I have stopped? As for the current AfDs, all I have added is my opinion on speedy keep suggestions (as have other editors) or withdrawn the nomination when I have made an error. My last response on Rah Crawford was to your statement that I hadn't checked for notability beyond the article itself - which simply isn't true, as I explained in the comments you removed. My edits are made by me, and I don't think many people would not feel attacked and upset by your comments - I'm not a robot and neither is any other editor, they are volunteers who make errors and give up their valuable time to try to help. Your behaviour and accusations, particularly on the Rah Crawford thread, really upset me, as did your decision to remove my post on that thread, without either consulting or informing me. Boleyn (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've found this post, what puzzles me is why two editors showed up at Rah Crawford and each confounded the discussion. Is this something you requested? I haven't had time to read your post here, this could take hours to analyze, and I have a RL to attend to. Unscintillating (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may not have found time to read Boleyn's post here, but as one of her friendly (usually!) talk-page stalkers I read it, was curious to see what it was about, noted that she was unhappy her post had been deleted, and decided it was better all round to revert your removal of the discussion at the AfD. I imagine the other editor may have a similar tale. It's how talk pages work. It is not "something [Boleyn] requested", beyond her statement above: there is no conspiracy. And now I've got a lot of off-wiki stuff to do today so will probably not reply further. PamD 10:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our guideline says to comment on edits, not editors. When I ask for clarification or evidence, I don't need assurance that I need neither. I hope you don't think that because I took down a speedy keep !vote in response to an adversarial post, that this is a good tactic to repeat. What continues to be missing IMO is a demonstration on your part that you are working on the notability questions you have raised for others to work on. Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Boleyn. You have new messages at Star Mississippi's talk page.
Message added 00:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

StarM 00:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

refactored discussion

I am moving an off-topic discussion here as per WP:REFACTOR. I woke up in the middle of the night and found that someone had decided to restore for no apparent reason the entire discussion. I had thought that removing my speedy keep !vote and everything thereafter would be the best for everyone involved, but since someone has taken exception to the simple solution, this is where we are. After someone restored the entire discussion, a second editor came along and changed the meaning. I don't know what is going on, but I've already repaired that part. I am now following the strict version of the guideline which moves the off-topic ad hominem part of the discussion to the talk page of the user. If you disagree with this, you can request that I restore the refactoring. Unscintillating (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following text comes from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rah Crawford

[begin insert of refactored text]
Comment As the discussion was about my motives and research, my response is not a 'groundless opinion'. You are very good at quoting guidelines, but although you may be keeping to the letter of WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY, you are not keeping to the spirit of it. I understand that you're really, really annoyed - I nominated a lot of articles which left editors who work in this area feeling flustered and over-worked. I also checked using a Google search, but should have read the guidelines far more carefully, and used the specific tips in WP:BEFORE. I am really sorry about that, and I stopped when it was raised with me on my talk page. Since then I have gone back over every one of my nominations, and withdrawn many to save other editors time in looking over an article which should be kept. A large amount of them have been found to be non-notable, and have been deleted, redirected or merged; many have already been kept and I have removed their notability tags; and some still remain to be looked at. Again, I am sorry that I have upset you, and I have learnt from it. But please stop these comments on me in the discussions, and if you choose to comment, comment on the notability of the subject rather than just trying to throw the remaining discussions out. They've been tagged for a long time, and now that people have taken the time to look through them and comment, let's see if we can get the question of their notability resolved. Boleyn (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[end insert of refactored text]

Edit tests on Rachel Brooksby

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles, such as the edit you made to Rachel Brooksby. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. Please do not sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on article talk pages or project pages such as the Village Pump. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! This is an automated message from 28bot. False positive? Please report it. 28bot (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)The above message is rubbish, and I've reported it on the bot's talkpage, but I agree with the bot that the template you added is a bit problematic. I've never seen that template used on a page, only in discussions at AfD, and I'm not sure it's appropriate on a public encyclopedia page. In this case the fact that an editor's only 3 edits were to start this article 6 years ago, when it's since been expanded by various other people, seems pretty irrelevant, surely? Something to mention in an AfD if you want, but not for the article page itself. PamD 15:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She certainly doesn't really seem to be notable, though has had an interesting and varied career! PamD 15:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pam. Boleyn (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HIGHSCHOOL

WP:HIGHSCHOOL is an essay, not a guideline. Please read the disclaimer: Template:Notability essay -- Mesconsing (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everlasting AfD

You do realize, don't you, that our deletion practices discourage renominating articles for AfD shortly after a "no consensus" close? I recognize that you may have spotted the article through the Project Notability list, but project-specific practices do not override site-wide norms.

You have been told now by the only three participants in the AfD that this norm ought to be respected. I would suggest that you consider pulling the nomination and respecting AfD practices, rather than covering your ears and digging in your heels. Newimpartial (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Newimpartial, that's just judgemental and a bit uncivil. I'm not 'covering [my] ears', 'digging in [my] heels' even though I've 'been told now'. I have expressed my opinion, others have expressed theirs. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you feel that a "suggest[ion] that you consider pulling the nomination" seems to you to be "a bit uncivil", you are clearly calibrated differently from some other editors here. That's all I have to say. Newimpartial (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Moving Draft:Darar 2 (film) to namespace

I have added some soures and content about this articles. Film is not released yet so more sources not available on this. So please review this article. Pk41946 (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, user:Pk41946, thanks for your work on this article, I see it is now in mainspace. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Pk41946 (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of State Research Institute Kristall

It can be confused with Kristall, the diamond-polishing factory in Smolensk or the multiple multiple Soviet / Russian factories named or nicknamed Kristall. It's also a military factory (Factory 80) that makes propellants and weapons. Hotspur23 (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drafting of Lenny Emmanuel article

Hello, I'm very new to wikipedia and the structure of communicating and asking questions. Please excuse me if this isn't the correct place to be asking questions related to a page you've drafted of mine. I'm just a little confused on what specificly needs references/ reliable independant sources. Do you mean the first couple sections of the wikipage? (The intro, "Literary Career", "Early Life") Or the Bibliography? Could you also maybe give me some insight on what specifically in that section as well? I'm sorry if this is a little too much to ask but the first question would very much be appriciated. I'll link the draft here: Draft:Lenny_Emmanuel I'm currently going over the guidelines and instructions you've given me at that time, which is very helpful. Thank you for helping me make this page a better source! Noah Guillen (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, user:Noah Guillen. Thanks for joining Wikipedia, and please don't be discouraged if new articles are moved at this stage - moving to draftspace helps give you time and avoids them being deleted. This is a biography of a living person, so need clear WP:INLINECITED references. For any information added to any article, the source should be clear so readers can see where the information comes from. Help:Referencing for beginners may help you. Thanks again for starting this article. Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from 'Daysman' to 'Adjudicator'.

Dear Boleyn,
I hope you are keeping well and safe? All is well here on the West Coast of Wales.
As ever, I would like to ask you for advice, and perhaps also for action on your part if you have the time, please? A few hours ago, I created an article on Eddie Butcher, whose father was a daysman. This is a term which, in Ireland (and most likely elsewhere in the British Isles), means "a day labourer for local farmers". However, at the moment, the Wikipedia article on Daysman is a redirect to Adjudicator, a different, non-archaic meaning, confirmed by the entry in Merriam-Webster.
Please may I therefore impose on your kindness and expertise, and ask you to suggest the best course of action here? Do we overwrite the Redirect to create a disambiguation page that clarifies both meanings? And/Or do we involve the Wikionary in some way? When I created my article, I had hoped to be able to wikilink the word to its archaic meaning (since it applies in the article on Eddie Butcher, who shared that occupation with his father). It's a fairly unusual word and it seems to me that it would be helpful to clarify it, via a wikilink, for the benefit of our readers.
Thank you so much for your consideration and assistance with this, Boleyn.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^{(become old-fashioned!)} 01:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, user:Pdebee, I'm fine, thanks, enjoying the rare sunshine :) The one you've raised is really tricky. 'Daysman' is not mentioned in the article it currently redirects to, so it's not necessarily a good redirect. The meaning you mention is unlikely to merit an article (other than, as you say, on Wiktionary) but there may be a mention of it on Wikipedia, I'll take a look. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked and added the term to two articles with a ref and found another mention, see Daysman now as a dab. Hope that looks OK. Boleyn (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Boleyn,

You're so good! Thank you so much for your meticulous approach; it's just what was needed, and I am most grateful to you for looking into the matter and taking these useful actions. In fact, I'll make a note of these, so that I'll be able to do this myself, next time. I hope you won't mind that I copy this section to the talk page, as a record of our exchanges? Thank you once again for your prompt and generous assistance.

With kindest regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^{(become old-fashioned!)} 10:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal note: Yes, this glorious weather is a godsend! I live within walking distance of a river and a couple of beaches, and go out for a walk every day; now feel fitter than ever as a result.

Please stay well and safe.

(PS: Why do I always want to call you Anne, I ask myself...

)

Eva Dögg Sæmundsdóttir

Dear Boleyn

Thank you for drawing my attention to the two dead links og Eva Dögg Sæmundsdóttir´s page. I have fixed them and reviewed others. Pls let me know if there is something else that Ive missed Pottablom (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"John Edwards ((1700?-1776)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect John Edwards ((1700?-1776). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 7#John Edwards ((1700?-1776) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina general election

Hi Boleyn,

I saw that you moved an article I created, 2018 Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina general election, to the draftspace. I asked you about this on my talk page, but I didn't get a response, so I'm going to paste it here:

Hi, I know that the tables on the page are cited (from the elections website for Bosnia and Herzegovina), although these are not footnote references. Also, this page was created as a split from another page (2018 Bosnian general election), so would it be better to leave the article in the mainspace and instead tag the article with an {{unreferenced}} template? Also, this article is clearly as notable as 2018 Republika Srpska general election and 2018 Bosnian general election, other major elections in the same country.

Thank you in advance for your response. Ezhao02 (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed that, user:Ezhao02. The notability wasn't at issue, just assessing how accurate the information was. I couldn't find any sources, and obviously we want to make it as easy as possible for readers to see where you got your information. You may want to submit it via AfC, or if you wrote the information in the article, to make its sources clear, which would then address the concern. Thanks for working on this, Boleyn (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, Boleyn. I feel like the only information provided in the article is the election results, which are cited in the results table (from the Bosnian-Herzegovinan government's Central Electoral Commission), but not as footnote citations. Would you suggest that I create a footnote citation for the table? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, user:Ezhao02, readers would find the info much easier that way. Thanks again for your hard work, Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, too! Ezhao02 (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand mayors articles

Hello Boleyn, I have just read your message concerning the articles Duncan McFarlane and John Walker Mitchell. I am an American and I don't know very much about these people, I just write what I know. My interest was piqued when I saw the article Mayors of Invercargill, and these people are very notable to WikiProject New Zealand. They don't articles in other languages, which makes things difficult for me. Please contact users Pokelova and Schwede66, they are more familiar with this topic. Thank you. Jackson767 (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, user:Jackson767, thanks for your message and your hard work creating these articles. The only issue is that the sources aren't WP:INLINECITED so it isn't clear which piece of information came from which book. That's not much of an issue with the article as it stands but could get confusing when the article is expanded. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Boleyn,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Leicester (UK Parliament constituency), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Palmer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another Barnstar for you!

		The Redirect Barnstar
		Dear Anne, It would appear that you have not been awarded one of these before, so I am delighted to do so today, in gratitude for all your wonderful assistance in fixing tricky Redirects, like you did recently by creating a disambiguation page for Daysman, among other actions which were so complex that I documented the seven-steps procedure here! Thank you, as always, for all your generous and most effective assistance! With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^{(become old-fashioned!)} 07:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, user:Pdebee, I appreciate that :) Boleyn (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Esther James

Hi there, on the off-chance that you have taken the Esther James AfD off your watchlist, I thought I'd bring to your attention a suggested withdrawal of the deletion proposal. The source that establishes notability was missing from the article (but not from her Wikidata entry). Schwede 66 09:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Schwede66, thanks, I saw your comments at the AfD before I saw this message. I appreciate your great work on this one. Boleyn (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your swift action. Our paths haven't crossed in a while; I hope you are still as active and productive as before. All the best. Schwede 66 18:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Ivy (disambiguation)

A dab page you edited in 2009 and 2019 has been WP:PRODed. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		In recognition of your recent thoughtful and balanced work at WP:AFD. Thanks for devoting the time to sift through problematic articles and bring them to the community's attention. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, user:AleatoryPonderings. I really appreciate that as I find it difficult dealing with CAT:NN as it's always putting your head above the parapet and wondering if you'll be attacked for your conclusion. I am always happy though if people do prove me wrong and find evidence of notability. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of 2 football seasons

Dear Boleyn, I would kindly like to ask you to remove 2 articles. 1) 2018–19 Veria F.C. season and 2) 2019–20 Veria F.C. season. Both pages due to confusion were regarding a different club named Veria NFC 2019 which doesn't exist an article to wikipedia as well and not Veria FC.

Sorry for any misunderstanding and for the trouble

Kind regards, PanosBonJovi (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, user:PanosBonJovi, no problem, it's easy to make errors like this. I've tagged both for speedy deletion. All the best, Boleyn (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup

I just responded to you elsewhere where you indicated that you're feeling isolated. My impression is that you're based in the UK and so it occurs to me to suggest attending the London wikimeet, which is coming up on Saturday, 12 July. This would usually be in London but, nowadays, because of the pandemic, it's online and so open to anyone in the same time zone. If you're unfamiliar with this or shy, you might lurk with your camera off initially to get a feeling for the proceedings. They are not usually exciting but it's a good way of making contacts and comparing notes. It's a good time to try this as it's not clear whether the pandemic lockdown will last much longer. For a second opinion, try User:PamD who has been attending these online meetups, iirc, and seems to be a kindred spirit. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: and Hallo Boleyn, Yes, I've enjoyed the couple of meetups I've attended. It's fun to see in person some of the people who lurk behind the edit names, and I learned some interesting stuff about making tables more accessible for screen-reader-users and thinking more carefully about Alt text, at one of them. Coincidentally I came across your name, yet again, a few minutes ago, when I retargetted a redirect you created six years ago while doing a tidy-up of Golden Acre and Golden Acres (alerted when the redirect I'd created in 2007 was turned into a dab page! Our paths cross frequently. I'd half forgotten Sunday's date (yes it's Sunday, just checked, not Saturday as stated above), but I expect to be there if I remember. While not completely shielding I've not gone far for the last three months, but I enjoyed spending an afternoon "down at the pub" with a bunch of interesting folk. I've occasionally nearly got round to going to a Manchester meetup, but it's a bit of a trek from my corner of Lancashire (literally: top left coner - half a mile north is Cumbria, half a mile west is Morecambe Bay). Might see you on Sunday. PamD 16:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, user:Andrew Davidson, thanks for your message and Pam's. I enjoy the feeling of being 'part of a team' when it comes to my work on New Pages Patrol and other work, but feel a bit useless with the notability work, as there hasn't been a visible team around cat:nn in the years I've been working on it, on and off (though there are likely to be people quietly working on it really well in the background). Thanks again, Boleyn (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line tree

Hello. There seems to be a problem with new entries not displaying correctly on list of AfDs and yours appears to be in red without the extra details. I'm not sure what the deal is, but you might want to double check it. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have a look :) Boleyn (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

One of your AFDs was not purged at the noticeboard, mind re-nomination Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, there seem to have been some issues lately, I'll see if I can work out how to fix it. I'm just using Twinkle, but it's occasionally malfunctioning. Boleyn (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of BELNET

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from BELNET, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --Ysangkok (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Thanks, and sorry for my error. Boleyn (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Brooke family has been nominated for renaming

Category:Brooke family has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Booth family has been nominated for renaming

Category:Booth family has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for you

		The Winnowing Fan Barnstar
		for your continued diligence in helping the community determine the notability of older articles. I see another editor beat me to it but I’ve found a particularly exotic barnstar so that’s ok. Mccapra (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thanks, user:Mccapra, that is very much appreciated, and thanks for your efforts in this area too. Boleyn (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I wish I'd known this barnstar existed, or I'd have handed you one as well just for tipping some of us off to the ghastly backlog at CAT:NN. And alluding to your comment above, it's not so much wondering whether the cementheads will take a swing at you for being one of Those Evil Deletionists, as knowing it's going to happen. Still, the work needs to be done all the same, and I'm happy to do my small part. Ravenswing 06:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, user:Ravenswing, I really appreciate the part you are playing :) Boleyn (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Luke Mabbott

Hello, Boleyn, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username North8000, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Luke Mabbott, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Mabbott.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

North8000 (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alerting user:Watching981 who changed my redirect to an article. Thanks for letting me know too, I've commented at the AfD. Boleyn (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Sam Lutfi" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sam Lutfi. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 22#Sam Lutfi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. --BDD (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh.

I just looked at my edit count, and I've racked up more edits in this CAT:NN crusade in the last two weeks than I did in the previous two years. Probably time I picked myself up off the mat as it was. Ravenswing 16:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It can certainly get addictive! Thanks for all the great work you've done. If we can find a way to keep this momentum up, the backlog would be 0 within 2 years, but of course it never works out like that, and we both have real lives to live too :) Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Arthur Forrest (Royal Navy officer)

Boleyn, you are 100% right; the edition of the Dictionary of National Biography which the text was copied from was written in 1889, and is thus out of copyright. I have taken the liberty of deleting the text of the notice from your talkpage, and also reversed the CSD. My apologies for the inconvenience. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, with the attribution removed, you couldn't possibly guess it was the old DNB. Article's better for having had the discussion. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renomination of Matthew Lynn at AfD

Hi - I saw you recently nominated this article for deletion and just wanted to let you know I've re-nominated it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Lynn (2nd nomination). Paradox society 08:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability backlog

I’ve noticed on a few talk pages that you’re looking to try and clear the notability backlog - how can I help? I’ve been working through a few in the last few days but if there’s a plan to help coordinate, I’d love to help! Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, user:Cardiffbear88, I was delighted to get your message. I have worked on the backlog on and off for 10 years but I have never been aware of any coordinaion, which is a shame for such an important topic. I am keen to continue helping but my skills are more as a gnome than co ordinating. I have started a discussion at talk page of wikiproject notability that it would be great if you could join. I think there are a few people out there working on the backlog but in isolation and we could really do with recruiting more. Boleyn (talk) 05:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cardiffbear88: I think it's less by way of coordination needed (among other things, we don't need accusations of collusion) and more along the lines of just digging in. I picked up on this because Boleyn came to the Notability (sports) talk page with a query on whether one of the backlogged articles met notability standards, and decided to dig in myself. We've both been independently working at the back end of the list (in 2009), but nothing says you can't dive in pretty much anywhere. If five minutes' investigation shows a subject can meet notability standards, great, remove the tag; if not, PROD, redirect, merge, AfD, whatever you think is appropriate. Ravenswing 20:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I've picked up on this as well and … wow … Amazing the trash that can sit around for literally a decade. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas, Prince of Leiningen

The AfD for this page has not been completed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas, Prince of Leiningen. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About your message to user talk.

re [[1] : this user plays some weird games with user names. THe user talk page page you left your message is a redirect to another user page.

The actually editing account is Aojfoisdifni89hub (talk · contribs), but there are also three other user names (and their talk pages) that are redirects: User:SKarctic and User:Arcticskulk, user:Tyanc13and7 and User talk:Aojfoisdifni89hub redirects to User talk:Arcticskulk.

Therefore I am not sure the user will see your notice.

Also, if you are admin, I would suggest to block the improper and confusing usage of user space, if not, do you know where to file a complaint? The user seems to ignore talk page messages. Staszek Lem (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This user is also messing with disambig and surname pages. ignoring comments in user talk page. I also noticed their first edit is in 2015 Staszek Lem (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, user:Staszek Lem, thanks for letting me know. I'm not an admin, but you could take the concern to WP:ANI for admin assistance. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 06:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]