User talk:Boleyn/Archive 4

Richard Armour

I have moved the Richard Armour article as requested. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thansk, Boleyn3 (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

John Bacon

Deleted as requested. Evercat (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Boleyn3 (talk) 09:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael O'Brien

Sorry for creating a link then creating the article in the disambiguation page - it took a while longer to sort out the article than anticipated, but the link points to it now rather than being a red link.Autarch (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it's no problem. Just glad to see some red links being made into articles. Boleyn (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool!Autarch (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert Treat Paine (disambiguation)

Hello, Boleyn. I'm the editor who recently changed a link from Robert Paine (disambiguation) to Robert Paine, stating that I did so because it was a "self-ref". You reverted the change, indicating that the link was not a self reference. You are, of course, quite correct. Actually, I was too lazy to try to fit into the summary what I felt was the problem. Let my try to explain here.

Robert Paine now includes a "see also" to Robert Paine (disambiguation). That disambiguation page, in turn, redirects back to Robert Paine. I do not think that this sort of circularity is desirable. You, clearly, are more experienced in situations of this nature than I, so I will leave it in your hands to modify the article or not. In any case, thanks for your help. Tim Ross (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point. However, the link takes the user straight to the right page, and going via a redirect causes no problems. It also means that the user is clear they are going to a disambiguation page and not an article, and saves editors time trying to add a sentence fragment for this entry. This is the guideline per WP:INTDABLINK, which I guess you've seen. If it didn't persuade you, then I'm unlikely to, I'm afraid! Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Greg Brown

Hi, thought I'd pop over here to more fully explain my edit to Greg Brown. I agree that normally you want to start a DAB entry with a link, but that's because normally, the link is to an article on the subject being DABbed. Where the link is to an article on another subject that includes coverage of the DABbed entity, the ordinary way is to start with the the DABbed subject, and then include a link on its entry to the superset-subject. This allows you to more neatly keep the list, assisting the reader in looking down the column to find the entry of interest, while still maintaining a link to the desired target.

This is covered in WP:MOSDAB#Specific entry types:

Items appearing within other articles: If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included. In this case, the link does not start the line, but it should still be the only blue wikilink.

Cheers. TJRC (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll bear that in mind in future. Boleyn (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert Putnam (disambiguation)

The MOS:DAB#Break_rules guideline says "ignore these guidelines if doing so will be more helpful to readers than following them." He is not notable enough to have his own article, but is relevant to 3 existing articles. I submit that linking to the 2 corporate articles wherein this person is a Director/Officer makes the DAB page more useful to readers. Your deletion of the 2 additional WLs means that readers have to go through an intermediate page to get to the links to the companies. If he had his own article I would agree that following the guideline of one WL per name is appropriate. However I believe that in this situation, including links to all 3 articles wherein he is a key person is more helpful to readers. Unless you can show how WP is harmed or compromised by this, I would ask that you accept this as a guideline exception per WP:Ignore all rules and allow the links to remain. OccamzRazor (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you again deleted the WLs stating that the articles did not contain valuable information about the person. I submit however, that the mere fact that he is an Officer/Director of these companies is indeed valuable information about him. Is a guideline more important than a more useful DAB page? OccamzRazor (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I didn't get your message until after I'd edited again. There was no point in linking to these articles, as they gave no more information on the man than the dab entry did. Linking gives the impression that they can find out more about this individual in the article, and will therefore waste people's time. I see however, that you've now deleted this dab completely, which was the best option. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Dave Ward (trade unionist)

Well actually I'm planning an article. But just a thought, using that argument why did you delete this and not Dave Ward (footballer)? TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you're planning an article, but most people don't, so it's best to add it to the dab afterwards (or immediately start a stub with the {underconstruction} tag and come back to it later - it will at least show up as a red link then. From a quick glance, Dave Ward (footballer) just about meets MOS:DABRL, he is mentioned and redlinked in an article on another footballer. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(Roy) Peter Martin

Question for you at Talk:Peter Martin. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I've responded there. Boleyn (talk) 06:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A. Chowdhury

Hi there. I apologize for the situation here there were two cricketers with the same name, I had intended to write articles about both players, but never got around to it - ended up only writing one name. Of course, this was about nine months ago and I've done nothing to enhance the situation.. ;)

If and when I get around to writing the redlinked article on the old version of that page, I should probably move the pages back - if that's okay with you. Not that I see myself doing that in the near future.

All the best. Bobo. 22:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As the A. Chowdhury who has an article is almost an orphan, moving the pages if another article is created wouldn't take a minute, I'd certainly have no objections. Best wishes, Boleyn2 (talk) 06:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wives_of_Henry_VIII

Hi Boleyn, could you please have a look at this page ... I've just reverted some nonsense and then realized that lots of information had been deleted much earlier. The last reliable version seems to be the one by Pikiwyn (20th Oct.). It would be nice, however, if you could check the quality of later edits. - Thanks --79.215.238.227 (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's an article I haven't looked at in a while, but we'll see what can be done! Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

William Owens

Hello Boleyn, I see you are an expert on disambiguation, and I am realizing that straightening out these things when they get tangled up can be pretty complex. So I have a question that I think you can help with.

Presently if someone types William Owens into the Wikipedia search they get the page that you requested to be deleted rather than the disambiguation page. If they type Bill Owens they get redirected to Bill Owens (Governor) rather than the William Owens (disambiguation page). Is there a way to fix this so that typing William Owens or Bill Owens goes to the William Owens (disambiguation) page? I know that you have requested deletion of the William Owens page -- but this may not happen for a while, and I wonder whether it will straighten out the problem. I believe that what started this little tangle was an edit or two around 17:00 today which can be seen on this page. [1]. Thanks!Majorite (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not sure how I missed this message, but I see it's sorted now. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Edward Bellingham (disambiguation)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Edward Bellingham (disambiguation). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Bellingham (disambiguation). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ivan Grabovac

I've checked again, and now I can't seem to find any reason for "Ivan Grabovac" to be used for Ante Gotovina at all. The article mentions "Andrija Grabovac". Google results for the former are scarce. How about we simply remove the redirect altogether as it trumps real names and is possibly completely faulty? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I've checked and nominated it for deletion; if you want to offer your opinion during the RfD, there's a link at Ivan Grabovac. Whether it's deleted or not, I wouldn't worry that it 'trumps' real names - it doesn't - if an article was created on someone of this name, it could be placed at this page or this page could become a dab mentioning both. Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Paul Klein

Hi Boleyn, you reverted my edit and I (effectively) reverted yours. You might want to have a look if it is okay now. --Pgallert (talk) 08:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Now it has a blue link, it's fine. I also went to the article and red-linked him in there, so it clearly meets MOS:DABRL. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ian Sinclair (disambiguation)

Hi Boleyn - I've re-added the New Zealand broadcaster to the dab page. Though you were correct by going by what it said at MOS:DABRL, in that no pages linked to Ian Sinclair (journalist), you might perhaps have checked a little more deeply by seeing whether anything was incorrectly linked simply to Ian Sinclair - two of the articles linked there were about the broadcaster. I also discovered one which was linked to Ian Sinclair (broadcaster) (to which i've changed the redlink at the dab page). Grutness...wha? 00:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you underestimate how many redlinks which don't meet MOS:DABRL are added to hndis pages every day; a large number of which are non-notables, vandalism or even the editor adding themselves. The link you added was wrong; it is not for me to trawl through all possible names and, if one crops up, try to ascertain if it was the same person. Also, as a navigational tool, redlinks, even if they do meet MOS:DABRL, aren't particularly useful on a page which is just one to click on a blue link to get to an article. I've now added a blue link to his entry, so people at least have some idea of where to go to if they want more info about him. I'm glad you found and corrected the link. Boleyn (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Taylor Hall

Wouldn't a significant mention from a very mainstream programme (and unique in its history) assert some measure of notability? It certainly motivated me to have a look who it is. The notability in this case doesn't warrant an entire article, certainly, but a brief note at the end of a disambiguation page is hardly to its detriment. Though I will admit I'm honestly unfamiliar with the notability criteria in this instance. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A disambiguation page is only there to provide assistance in finding an article on the person. As it stood, the dab mentioned more about the person than the one article that mentioned Hall does. I don't think that any further info in the article would fit either, as it was hardly an integral part of the programme. It is worth noting in the article itself - perhaps even adding the interesting sentence that it's the only episode which has been dedicated to someone - but it couldn't really warrant inclusion on the dab. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

An increased note in the article body would probably be most fitting. Out of curiosity, do we have inclusion criteria for disambiguation pages? —what a crazy random happenstance 04:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are guidelines, although people obviously draw the line in different places. From MOS:DABRL: A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link. Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics. To find out if any article uses the red link, click on it, and then click "What links here" on the toolbox on the left side of the page. If the only pages that use the red link are disambiguation pages, unlink the entry word but still keep a blue link in the description. Red links should not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information. The linked article should contain some meaningful information about the term.

I added the bold to the section I feel means that this entry wouldn't belong on the dab. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't really add a red link, I added a section in lieu of an article, but thanks for pointing me to the relevant MOS page for disambiguation articles. Ta for your time, happy editing, see you around! —what a crazy random happenstance 05:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

Excuse me, I think we have discussed this before. I am trying to figure out why we have different understandings on the policies on disambiguation pages.

My understanding is that redlinks are supposed to remain on disambiguation pages, when there is at least one real article that also contains a wikilink to that red-link. These redlinks contain important information. And their removal can lead to confusion and wasted effort. The redlink shows that at least one contributor has recognized that there is another individual who is notable enough that he could be confused with his or her homonyms. Removing those redlinks encourages the possibility that information about the person who previously had a redlink gets added to the wrong article -- to one of the homonyms' articles.

Please consider an individual named Joe Blow, or Jane Blow. Some good faith contributor comes across a newspaper article that contains something worth covering about Joe Blow or Jane Blow, and they decide to look to see if that individual is already covered in the wikipedia. If someone like you has killed the disambiguation page, or excised the redlink from a disambiguation page, those good faith contributors frequently don't recognize they are adding valid material to the wrong person's page.

I have seen this many times, because I work on articles on people who for geographic and cultural reason have considerable name collision. Your efforts make my efforts, and those of other people who work on those articles, more difficult.

When the redlinks are left as-is that good faith contributor is able to make some informed choices. They could decide "the new reference I found is not sufficient to justify starting a new article about Mr or Ms redlink, but I am glad that redlink was there or I would have added that info to Mr or Ms wronglinks' article." Or they could decided, "heck, in for a penny, in for a pound -- I only meant to add this to an existing article, but this new refererence contains information important enough to start a new article." Alternatively, the what links here for Mr or Ms redlink could direct their attention to articles on Mr otherguy1 and Ms othergal2, who are also mentioned in the new reference they found, and they could decide to leave the redlink as a redlink and add that new reference to the appropriate places in the other article(s).

Redlinks have value. And, IMO, they shouldn't be tossed away as if they had none. I believe these are among the reasons the policy says redlinks shouldn't be removed from disambiguation pages if other articles link to them.

Are you sure your efforts at pruning disambiguation pages strictly complies with policy? Geo Swan (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite confused by this message. I have no objection to redlinks on dabs, I just usually aim to add a blue link to the line. If you give me an example of a page you're talking about, I can then comment properly. Boleyn (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've looked, and I'm guessing you meant Abdul Razak (disambiguation)? On this, I removed two entries without any links at all, red or otherwise. This is clearly the guideline towards the end of MOS:DABRL, that adding an entry with no links serves no purpose. I agree with the policy and as far as I can see, on this and other dabs, this is how I have edited. Boleyn3 (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

clarification please...

Would you mind clarifying whether you made the edits that show up under User:121.218.192.198? What about User:124.179.88.180? These anonymous IP shows the same kind of removal of redlinks that I just wrote to you about.

I have occasionally arrived at a wikipedia article through google, and not realized that -- sometimes -- one can arrive at an article through google, and the system won't properly log one in, so that edits made to that article show up as if made by an anonymous IP. I try to avoid this, whenever possible, because it messes up my watchlist -- the edits I make when not logged in don't show up on my watchlist. It also really confuses one's correspondents, who should be able to track all our edits through a single wiki-id.

Of my 50,000+ edits I think only 0.01 or 0.02 percent were made while not logged in.

FWIW, I only have one watch list. It is very difficult to manage. I considered doing what you have done, several years ago -- I considered creating a User:Geo Swan 2 and a User:Geo Swan 3.

I decided not to because I didn't think doing so would appear to honor the policy that each contributor was allowed just one wiki-id. I already get bogus accusations that I use sockpuppets, and those accusations really bug me because I have been the target of personal attacks by several determined sockpuppetmasters, and found that to be extremely unpleasant.

I appreciate that you created User:Boleyn2 and User:Boleyn3 in good faith. And I don't plan to report you. But I can see how others would regard this use of multiple IDs as confusing, because it confused me at first. Geo Swan (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No, those anons are nothing to do with me, and I don't really appreciate the suggestion. I can see instantly that these aren't accidentally mine, because there are no edit summaries. As you said yourself, it's extremely annoying to be accused of being a sockpuppet or using anon ids to cover up your own edits. I looked carefully at creating multiple accounts before I did so, and I'm clearly within the guidelines, and have taken all steps possible to avoid confusion. Many editors remove redlinks from dabs, either because they don't meet the guidelines or because they mistakenly think they are not allowed on dabs; I'm unsure why you would assume this was me. I spend quite a bit of time restoring those which do meet MOS:DABRL and adding blue links to the line. Boleyn3 (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

William Sherman (disambiguation)

Can I ask a question? You certainly seem to know what you're doing, disambiguation-wise, but late this summer you removed William Sherman Jennings from William Sherman (disambiguation), and today you tagged it for CSD because it only had 2 names. You referenced MOS:DAB when you removed William Sherman Jennings, but I don't see where it says in there that similar names like this should be removed. Coming at it from the POV of an ordinary user who only remembers a little of William Sherman Jennings's name, it might be useful to have his name at that disambiguation page.

Not really questioning your decision, so much as trying to learn. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The rule that you add people by personal name only, and not by given + middle name used to be on MOS:DAB, it now simply says that they should be separated (and, of course, that there is potential for confusion, i.e. that the person's middle name may be commonly known and used). When I tagged it, I didn't realise I'd previously removed an entry. I'm happy for it to be left as it now is. Best wishes, Boleyn2 (talk) 09:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of CSD without notification

You are making large numbers of nominations for speedy deletion, without any notification. Why is that? There is strong consensus that the creators and major contributors of pages and media files should be warned of a speedy deletion nomination. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, when a page I'd created was nominated using {db-disambig}, I got a bot message and I thought this was what happened to all. I'd notify in future. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of dab pages

Hi Boleyn

Your editing on dab pages came to my attention through the note you kindly placed on my talk page.

However, I have been reviewing your other edits, and am concerned that you are being far too hasty to remove disambiguation pages and links. I have contested several of the dab pages which you had tagged for spedy deletion, and undone a number of other changes. In particular, I am concerned that you appear to be deleting dab pages when there is no clear primary topic, and also that a number of other changes are misconceived. Please can you take a break and discuss this? I'll post more details.

(BTW, to keep discussions in one place, please reply here). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been nominating a number of dabs on the same grounds today. I have explained in the prods and AfDs why the articles at the primary page appear to be justifiably, and this is something I have been checking on before I nominate. All pages I edit are added to my watchlist, so I have seen the changes you've made and, although I don't necessarily agree with all of them, I respect the work you do on here. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Boleyn, a huge chunk of what you are doing is damaging dismabiguation. :(

For example, a few years ago I spent days disambiguating the numbers of UK politicians called Williams Williams, or some variation thereof. Many f them represented the same constituencies in the same era, and (as often happens with such families) the same names was often re-used with the same family for many generations. Disambiguating these people is very labour-intensive, yet your rapid-fire work undid some of what I had painstakingly put together.

• you redirected the dab page Sir William Williams, 1st Baronet to Sir William Williams, even tho several of the entries were not listed there.
• You redirected the dab page William Peere Williams to William Peere Williams (1664-1736), with the comment "redirect to only entry primarily known as this". However both people were known as "William Peere Williams". One had a title and the other didn't, but they were both known as WPW.

There are several other examples, and I'm very disappointed to see painstaking disambiguation work being disrupted in this way. Wikipedia needs more disambiguation, not less, and you seem to be on some sort of mission to dismantle chunks of it. Please stop. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to feel very attacked by this (and the next message you've left on my Talk page). I've explained clearly why I've made my edits, but I don't expect to always be right, and am happy to have people disagree with me and rv my edits if need be. As for WPW, only one had this in the title of the article, indicating that the other was primarily known as WW, although was sometimes known as WPW. Therefore a hatnote seemed the best option. You rv it and I left that unchallenged; I have no problem if you know these two better than I do that you rv it. I think I have shown clearly other the last couple of years that I am trying to add disambiguation pages to WP and have spent large chunks of time donig so. But dabs are not the only way to disambiguate; as per MOS:DAB guidelines, sometimes hatnotes disambiguate more clearly and more directly. Of course, comment on the relevant AfDs etc. or Talk pages of dabs, but I'd rather you didn't contact me directly on this again. Boleyn (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

AFD

Hi Boleyn

If you are going to nominae articles for deletion, please would you take some time to do so properly? There are full instructions at WP:AFD#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion, and following them ensures that the discussions are properly linked and categorised.

The recent AFD nominations you ave made are neither categorised not formatted correctly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Jenny Ohlsson

Hi Boleyn. Thank you for curating the article. While it might be true that the article could use more sources it is not very helpful to complain about there not being enough sources, but not stating which secions need to be further sourced. The article conatains 3 references, what's not referenced is her education. This can be found on LinedIn for example. There seem to be no additional sources available, so I cannot understand the "stub" reference. If there were more sources available the article would be longer and had more detail. So what's the point? Regards, --Gereon K. (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Gereon K.. I added the {refimprove} tag because it has two sources and an external link, but it doesn't add up to 'multiple, independent sources'. One of the two references is a primary source. As ambassadors aren't de facto notable, there is a chance this could be tagged for deletion. The 'stub' tag indicates that the article is short. It's not necessarily a problem, hopefully over time it will increase. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Your Message on citing the source on my Mehal Meda town Page.

Hi, Boleyn. I appreciate the effort to review my page and glad that you worry for the accuracy of the information. For the existence of the town I already give the sources which can be seen on the links and the secondary source was Google map to determine the location. Apart from that I was born in this town. One day I was searching for my town on Wikipedia and couldn't find it. Then I started to search for information on wiki about the neighboring cities and provinces. For example the town Mehal meda is listed as the administrative center of the province over here I just provided the detail. As I am from there. So my sources are mainly Wikipedia and Google map.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbel1123 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Abbel1123, thanks for getting back to me so quickly. It's amazing how many towns still don't have articles, thank you so much for taking the time to create this one. Your information is likely to be right, but for the encyclopaedia article, we need to be sure there is no WP:OR (original research) and Wikipedia cannot be used as a source itself, because anyone could have edited the information, and may or may not have written where they had got the information. This article does need clear sources in it; it should aim to have multiple, independent sources. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

References

New Page Reviewer's Osmium Star

		The New Page Reviewer's Osmium Award
		For over 15,000 reviews completed in a single year. As a real asset to the team, your incredible review count has required that I expand the award tiers upward and gift you the first and only (so far) Osmium star. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated :) Boleyn (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your persistence in contacting and reporting people repeatedly adding unsourced content and articles. Great work :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Premeditated Chaos. It's not the nicest or easiest bit of the work I do, so I really appreciate the appreciation. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Capsa (Roman colonia)

Hi Boleyn... don't think we've ever interacted, so nice job on the NPP... Question though, you did a review of the above article, which seems to simply be the historical name for Gafsa. While that article is a bit fleshed out, it doesn't seem to warrant a split for this historical period. I had reverted the redirect, and suggested the editor expand the section on the target article, but they have indicated that they prefer a standalone article. Any thoughts? Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me, I've started a merge discussion, please join in. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion reason for Rovshan Muradov

Dear Boleyn, Thanks for your comment. I changed "external links" to Sources. Please let me know if I need to do any other changes for not deletion. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmmka (talk • contribs) 13:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I found this on my talk page but it is really addressed to you. For your information, I nominated an article of this name for speedy deletion for G11 and G12 on 23rd January, and it must have been deleted. This version may not be identical, but I do remember the image. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Cwmhiraeth} and I've left a message at Emmmka's page. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Whenever I notice the backlog take a steep dive, and I check the global log, it always seems to be because of your great work. Thanks very much. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Insertcleverphrasehere. I've done a lot of reviewing the last few days, and it being noticed helps me keep going. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Not kidding! 854 in a week! Can I give you another one of these? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks :) Boleyn (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

well done

Hi, I just read an ANI thread where you got criticised for doing a great job at NPP. I was appalled, particularly because it sounded to me like somebody was trying to imply that you consider yourself the centre of the world and that you only started the thread because you felt offended that the user in question was ignoring you. Nobody put it in that many words, but it sounded like that, and I didn't appreciate it. Well done for standing your ground and please carry on doing the great work you're doing. Dr. Vogel (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, DrVogel. That did seem to be the interpretation, which surprised me after I had initiated so many similar threads which had gone very differently. I can't say I wasn't hurt by it, so appreciate you taking the time to contact me. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep it up!

I'm sorry I didn't get to contribute to this recent AN/I report before it closed. I've overlapped with you on 'problem user' talk pages a number of times and I've always thought that you've found a good balance between persistence and patience :)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For all of your efforts in making sure Wikipedia articles are referenced. Nzd (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Nzd, it was great to get your message when I was feeling a bit bruised by that discussion. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

(Sungai Besi MRT station)

I'd have my references on MRT Official webpage. https://www.mymrt.com.my/public/travel-with-mrt/ From Unknown152438 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown152438 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Laossaurus

You might be interested in this, if you haven't seen it yet. Basically, it's pretty certain we had this editor (and their particular brand of headaches) before. I would not assume that any stubs they produce will see sourcing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Elmidae, I'm glad the situation's sorted, for now at least. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Mazepa (film)

Hello! You can change title of article on "Mazeppa (film)"? Nikolai Kurbatov (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Nikolai Kurbatov, I can or it can be requested at WP:RM. What do you think it should be changed to? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

당신을 위한 반스타!

	편집자 반스타
	I thank you for your concerning. 칼빈500 (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, 칼빈500. Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Kutumba Gowravam

Dear Boleyn, These are the maximum sources I could find for the this article, I would be greatful if could how reliable soures. Thanking You Dr. B. Bhargava Teja. (B.Bhargava Teja (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC))

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Anaxial. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Jayden cole, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Anaxial (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Banned

I received your 3 alerts suggesting that I improve articles I created. Please check my talk page where you will find that I am currently banned from working on school articles, "broadly construed". Jzsj (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me, Jzsj. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Concerns on Legal High(Japanese TV series)

Dear Boleyn,

Thank you for the review and concerns about the source of this wikipedia page "Legal High(Japanese TV series)" , I will try to get on with the sources when I have time. I took down one of the tags, since both tags are the same, so I just kept the newer one that you put on! Thanks!!!

Sincerely,

Timmy78722 (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Timmy78722. Boleyn (talk) 08:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Sam Chui page

it is not realted to it's promotion . In wikipedia we found many of the big film actors amd singers or big personality have their article. So we couldn't say like that we are promoting that actors . So in that case we say like we are providing information about that Actor so like that same way samChui also has a big place in aviation sector he is a common man but he is in great place of aviation. So through this article all who wants to know more about him can get a knowledge about him. So thereby i am strongly opposing the deletion of this page. For information this page is not related to any of his promotion it is related about his information to the people, do you find anything in this whole article which is describing to follow him on social media? because this article was created for information not for promotion, Regards I kindly request you to retrieve that article back to Wikipedia Vnk414 (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Vnk414. I can't re-instate your article, as I am not an admin, and it was not my final say on whether it was deleted. However, you could re-create the article and submit it via WP:AFC. It read in a very promotional tone, and from your message above I'm guessing there is a WP:COI. If you think he really meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG, then WP:AFC is a good route to re-creation. There you will get advice as well. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

In the deletion tag it was mentioned that the same article can be retrieve by the one who has started that deletion process, is my article now restrictions free Vnk414 (talk) 09:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Have added sources to article Morgan Morris. Apologies for lack of reply.

Thanks you, Harriesss. Boleyn (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Reunion

Just to let you know, I added a source on the page Reunion. Fixer88 (talk) 20:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Fixer88. Boleyn (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Publius Cornelius Maluginensis Scipio

Sorry for delays, I didn’t know how to contact you. Do I need to add citations and categories to the articles:

• Publius Cornelius Maluginensis Scipio
• Scribonius (Bosporan usurper)
• Gaius Sulpicius Galba (consul 5 BC)

Who knew making Wikipedia articles was so hard? Jasgray04 (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry you've doun it hard, Jasgray04, but I'm sure you'll get the hang of it quickly, you have written some good pages! Yes, citations are needed. When you're knew, if you're really unsure about categories, you can tag it as {{uncat} or leave them, but sources are the important thing. Thanks for responding - if you need any more help, please feel free to contact me or ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Shall I quit my contribution.

Thanks for being rude. I follow Christianity which teaches us to be humble. And you won't understand it. Mansukhsurin (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Mansukhsurin: Where do you consider that Boleyn has been rude? Please show us, before rudely accusing her of being rude. All of us here follow the rules of Wikipedia, regardless of whether we also follow any religion. These include communicating with other editors, replying to posts on talk pages, adding reliable sources for everything we add to the encyclopedia, and so on. PamD 09:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Rules don't necessarily make any one a perfect person.

Being on wikipedia is not a full time profession of mine like you. If I can quit other social networking sites like the most popular One the face book I can stop being here also. Following rules could not make the present billionaire like Bill Gates or any other successful entrepreneur or happy person. Some times My articles might not fullfil the criteria as for that time but surely that doesn't makes it irrelevant or something that people do not want to read or know about. Any way It has it has hurted me. And you on the other side being a robot you can't understand what are emotions. Thank you very much for making me realize that One shouldn't do charity or any thing for free else people will surely point out mistakes. Neither they will appreciate nor they will encourage. Rightly said "It is better to idle then to show your skill even for free. Thanks Bolen. Mansukhsurin (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mansukhsurin, can I just ask you, if you don't mind please, do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia? Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Mansukhsurin, I have just repeatedly tried to start a conversation with you about some of your creations, so we can work together to improve them. Sources are really important in articles, and I was trying to discuss that - it's a shame you seem to have taken that so much to heart and felt offended by it. Please, instead of making unsubstantiated claims that I am 'rude' or 'a robot', can you please just discuss with me where you got the information? I am happy to help add the sources to the articles, or offer any advice you need. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

2011–12 CR Belouizdad season

Thanks for reminding me Now I am working on it in the next two days, I will put sources, Currently there is one source I put it down External links All results are there, Hichem algerino (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Hichem algerino. 'External links' just means 'suggestions for further reading' and doesn't indicate that it was used as a source. External links sections are useful additions, but it's important that there are clear sources in the article. Thanks for creating this, Boleyn (talk) 08:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Message on talk page

Thanks for the reminder about Arisaig Provincial Park, I didn't have time to edit immediately after creating the article. I'll try to fix it up a bit in the coming days. Ultimograph5 (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Ultimograph5. Boleyn (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Rafael Eitan Mekif Ramat Gan High School

Hi Boleyn. Does this article meets Wikipedia's Notability guideline? What do you think? Regards, יוניון ג'ק (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi יוניון ג'ק. I would say it probably does (nearly all high schools do, see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) but it needs multiple, independent sources to make that clear. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

And if there are no multiple, independent sources? יוניון ג'ק (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Then it probably wouldn't meet the criteria - it does need to meet the criteria at either WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Schools will usually have it through local newspapers, books etc. There's usually enough coverage, but not necessarily easily acceptable. I've never seen a high school deleted at AfD though. Boleyn (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Sariya/Suriya

Hi, I noticed that you added a place called Suriya to the Sariya page which I created. I am thinking of creating a separate Suriya page. Do you think it should be it's own page or what about making a joint page? Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Davidgoodheart. I think both are good options. The Suriya I added is also sometimes written as Sariya, so it would belong on both dabs if there were separate ones. But if there are a few entries, it might still be worth having them separate for the ease of readers. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 05:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Boleyn for your input, and best wishes to you too! Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

WanBi Tuấn Anh

I had already added all the sources for the page but seem like someone deleted all the sources. Also, he should be called "Tuấn Anh", because in Vietnam, the name "Anh" can be used for both of female and male, it'll make people confuse, I feel annoyed because I had already explained and even left the source but they don't understand -,-
Sorry for my bad grammars. Btw, you can call me "Lam" (Lam) April 25, 2018

Oh, that is strange. I have had a look through and could see earlier sources but not who took them out. At least some of them were unreliable, e.g. Vietnamese Wikipedia can't be used itself as a source, but I don't know enough about the other sources to know if they are reliable or not. Thanks for your message, Boleyn (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @NguyenAnhLam: No-one has removed your sources but you have not formatted them properly as references. I have fixed the first one so that is listed under "References", though it also needs to be given as a proper reference with title, source, date etc and not just the website URL. You can now fix the rest. Please don't accuse an unknown "someone" of damaging your article when you have not taken the trouble to learn how to add references. PamD 06:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding article cite sources

Hello Boleyn, Greetings!
In relation to the articles Kan newspapers list and Can newspapers list, I added the tag 'cite sources' to article Ind mags list. But its reverted with a summary as 'not required'. Can you please have a look in to the article. | Thank you, Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for adding citations. Per WP:SourceList, they should have them, lists are still classed as articles. Your tag was right so I've restored it. Thanks again, Boleyn (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

When I created that page, I was merely copying down information from other pages. I did not add any new information. --Numberguy6 (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Numberguy6. All articles do need sources, even ones that are similar to list articles, per WP:SourceList. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Roger Mitchell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Roger Mitchell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Mitchell (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ansh666 07:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm PamD. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Srinivasa Ramanjuan Concept School, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

PamD 12:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I actually meant to unreview it ... but looking again I see the only "reference" was to Facebook, so I've removed that and sent it to AfD as non-notable. PamD 13:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

About the article 1998–99 Saudi First Division

thank you boleyn , I have already given the reference.this is it [2]

Slayym (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I know the Papá Soltero page needs some fix-ups. What can I do? Julio P. 06:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julio Puentes (talk • contribs)

Hi Julio Pentes. It just needs its sources. What was your source for the article? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 06:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Response to Koh-Lanta: L'Île au Trésor

Hi, sorry for not responding. I was looking at some sources and wanted to make sure that they were reliable. I can add about two or three (for now) but I don't really know how to use the reference box properly so as of this message, it'll most likely just have the link as its reference. The references are all in French so I'll need help in adding some stuff to indicate that it is in the said language. As you were asking, the external links box was used for the official website but I've failed to (as of yet) find an archive version of the site at the time the season was airing. I meant to use it for the website and not for the references (as of your previous message, I have added a reference box to the article). I intend on adding a challenge and voting history section to the article as well; was doing the former but laptop died along with the work. Thank you for your concerns and by apologies for not responding to you sooner. I hope I can learn and make articles with the right resources required to make these articles have no issues whatsoever. Cheers, have a good day Boleyn. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nintenga (talk • contribs) 21:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Nintenga. Boleyn (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Onel5969. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Eridu, Florida, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

My bad - didn't mean to do that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I accidentally do that all the time :) Boleyn (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christopher Willoughby (MP), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dodington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply

I have previously replied. I forgot to put heading so apparently you missed it. Julio P. 01:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julio Puentes (talk • contribs)

Reply 3

I cited iMDb, which apparently I found out is not considered a legitimate source. As for La Union and Avalanche, I thought of being a bit more distinctive approach; namely to make a sort of start of the articles and use them later.Julio P. 04:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julio Puentes (talk • contribs)

Hi Julio Pentes, thanks for your message. Yes, unfortunately it is an unreliable source, as good a website as it is. Where did you get the information you added to La Union and Avalanche? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 06:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply 2

Hello. I hope I didn't come across as rude with my apparent lack of interest to reach out to you. I've been seeing the ways to correct the page and make it follow Wikipedia's guidelines. If anything, you can show me what precisely is wrong with the page. Julio P. 23:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julio Puentes (talk • contribs)

I've replied at your talk page to keep it all together. Thanks for your message, Boleyn (talk) 06:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for that, to warn and understand keep it up, Sincerely Jhoven Sulla (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Jhoven Sulla. Boleyn (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Response to edits

Sorry for the inconvenience I will start fixing all the links and edits

Khaled Sadeq (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC+3)

Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply to talk

Sorry I didn't get a chance to respond earlier. I'm in the process of recreating the pages that were deleted, adding citations to all, I'm quite familiar with how wiki works as I've been editing pages since about 2007.StadiumXIII (talk) 11:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)