Hi there - I am curious why you reverted a bit from the Charles Jackson disambiguation page. I read the policy on red links, but the author I posted there was not red linked. The text was black. If a Wikipedia article is required for an entry, then we need to delete three additional entries on that page. I could have made the entry more concise admittedly.
RegardsNpd2983 (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a red link, but MOS:DABRL covers it. If you read the policy there, it explains it better than I can, but basically an article is not requires but a WP article which mentions the person, and in more than a namecheck is necessary. The other entries which don't have their own articles meet this. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Boleyn. I directed discussion of your proposed merger (Elizabeth Hutchinson Jackson -> Andrew Jackson, Early life and career) to Talk:Elizabeth Hutchinson Jackson using the "discussion=" parameter in the {{mergeto}} template. I did this because there are already two long-ish comments on the creation of a 'Family of Andrew Jackson' page on that talk page, and because there is no {{mergefrom}} template on Andrew Jackson. If you think Talk:Andrew Jackson is a more appropriate place for the discussion, please change the discussion= parameter. If you make that change, you might also want to mention it on the E.H. Jackson talk page. Cnilep (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ms. Boleyn, I recently re-arranged the ab initio articles(the company, the original term and the disambig page). I just saw that you removed the flying level class in aviation from the list on the dismbig page. I just wanted to point out that the original uses were based on your post in the talk pages (as boleyn2) for ab initio, I located your source and used it as reference in the ab initio article. I read through WP:DICT and I understand that wikipedia is not a dictionary but that post related to a possible usage of the term not its meaning, its meaning remains the same, only the context differs. Regardless I think someone should add the usage to wikitonary but the meaning would be more or less the same, ab initio means from the beginning in avaition just like in literature or education levels, I can cite the source if that would help. Ideally, the disambiguation page should mention all the uses in all related context especially if they are backed by a source. I have been working on fixing disambiguation links recently, there are a lot of aviation related articles that point to the main ab initio page, a mention of aviation on the disambig page as well would be very helpful, maybe you can check the pages that link to the main article and see what I mean, I urge you to re-consider. Thank you --Theo10011 (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on Wiktionary, but you may want to add it's commonly used in aviation. As for adding it, and a source to the dab, I think you're misunderstanding what a dab is (see WP:DAB and MOS:DAB); it's essentially an index of Wikipedia articles. I saw that there is now a new article at the primary page; I haven't looked at it, but there may be room to mention aviation there. Links should never go to a dab (WP:INTDABLINK is the only exception I can think of) and so it shouldn't be linked in aviation articles. I'm afraid adding this to the disambiguation page would go completely against the guidelines and the whole point of a dab. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Ms. Boleyn, I read through WP:DAB. The thing is, that aviation related articles themselves are in their infancy, a lot of internal links(approximately a third) of the pages currently linking to the main article are aviation related. I mentioned it on the main page with some corresponding sources but shouldn't the disambiguation page also make some mention of it until there is a page dedicated to that, that was my only concern but I do see your point. Anyway, I created the article at the primary page and just thought that you should know it was because of your post on the talk page. Kind Regards --Theo10011 (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you move a page to a new location (like you did here), it would be helpful if you checked the links to that page and performed the appropriate disambiguations. I've done this for the William Brandon page already. - Nunh-huh17:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nunh-huh, I was interested to get a message from you as I admire your work on here. However, I don't think this was an appropriate message to send - that edit was made more than a year and a half ago when I was quite new to WP. Boleyn (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm glad you like my work, and I'm sorry you don't like my message, but the fact is you moved a page and didn't fix the links, and I thought you'd like to know about it. If you've reformed and it's no longer needed, then we should both be happy. - Nunh-huh20:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I've reformed? You contacted me to say I made an oversight 1 year and 8 months ago - and over 80,000 edits - ago, and you think that's helpful? It's that kind of attitude that puts people off editing at all. Boleyn (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean I contacted you to let you know I cleaned up a mess you created 1 year and 8 months ago that had gone uncorrected for that length of time, and you're angry at me, and want to lecture me on my attitude? I thought I was quite temperate; if you're unhappy about the note or the conversation just delete it from your talk page. - Nunh-huh20:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which vandal do you mean? I reported a few yesterday. I don't know how to link edits which are vandalism, but if it's one I reported recently that it will be that all their user contributions have been vandalism. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi....Well I wanted you to read the article Silkski over to see if it still sounds like an advertisement. I have made a lot of changes since you added that tag. I am hoping that its sounds more neutral. If it does, would you please so kindly remove that one tag...I would try to correct the other mistakes also.... I am still collecting strong resouces. (Have not added them yet) Also I kind of need help with citing. I have not figured that one out yet. I also made contributions to Silkski's father's page...Jerome Evans but do not know how to add the citation. I put the resource in the discussion portion of the page so that maybe one of you guys could add it. I hope I did not mess any thing up...so please help. I really want both pages to be right. Thanks so much!
I added a number of sources for Silkski under his discussion page regarding the input on the article. I do not know how to properly incert the sources into the article...if you would be kind enought to do it for me I would be very grateful. I would follow your lead and do the rest of the sources I add the same. Thanks :)
I've added the ref to his father's page and some to Silkski's page. You've put refs in the right places, you just need to add [1] after it. The Scene references could also do with a month or date in 2003 added to them. It doesn't sound like an advert now, but doesn't sound at all like an encyclopedia either. Some of the language, in particular the introduction, is difficult to understand if you don't know his style of music, but that can easily be rectified. Notability and orphan tags are now removed - I'm sure by the end of this, it'll be a great article and a credit to yo and all your hard work. Boleyn (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you have recently deleted most entries from the disamb Arthur Roberts. I can't understand the motive. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to help readers find the article they want; not to fit some abstract aesthetic canon. We cannot assume that readers who are looking for one of those people have the full name; and often the name that is cited elsewhere is second+last or first+second, rather than first+last. So it is better to include all those possibilities than to send many readers off to a wild goose chase.
Besides, discarding the useful work of other editors is not a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Those entries took a lot of work to assemble; if you thought that they didn't belong there, you should have moved them to other appropriate disamb pages — such as the still-missing
Arthur Robert disamb. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:DAB, A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion. I don't know of any encyclopedias who would list people on an Arthur Roberts page if their full name was Neil Arthur Andrew Roberts, and very few people would know what someone's middle names were. If they were commonly known as Arthur Roberts, that can be put next to the entry and mentioned in the article. It isn't a case of trying to fit fit some abstract aesthetic canon, the information made the page confusing and difficult to navigate, and very unlikely to aid anyone. I didn't see that there were people with the personal name Arthur Robert (and a dab isn't the place for partial matches - adding {lookfrom} or {intitle} in the see also does that, which I think I did for the Arthur Roberts dab). Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Boleyn, I do not want to polemize, and I will not fight over the Arthur Robert(s) pages. But I take issue with the use of 'other encyclopedias' as paragons. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, and will never be. It is something else entirely, and must reinvent all its parts (as it did already to a large extent). The effort to make it look like a classical encyclopedia is misguided (because it is doomed to fail), has wasted an enormous amount of everybody's time, and is making the "wikipedia experience" much less fun for everybody. Several years ago I had some 1,000 pages on my watchlist, and most events that came up in it were *contents* edits. Now I have 1,800 pages in it (after substantial trimming), but most of the events are purely bureaucratic or cosmetic edits that do not really make Wikipedia better for readers. Meanwhile we have something like 1,700,000 stubs in 3,100,000 articles, and many important articles (such as metallurgy) which are little more than bags of random scraps. Sigh... All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 main reason for a dab page (as opposed to an article) is to route the reader to where content really lives, so the rationale for redlinks is different than for an article. In an article, you place a redlink to encourage new articles; in a dab page they're considered clutter that distract from their main purpose. Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies re: my "blanking" comment. There was no edit summary, and as the previous edits were vandalism-like ("the best person who ever lived", "a legened"), I erroneously assumed your edit was a continuation. My bad. SpecMode (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Boleyn, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Meatsgains(talk)16:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Boleyn, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Hhkohh (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm JC7V7DC5768. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, 1968 Drexel Dragons football team, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
Hi, I'm JC7V7DC5768. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, 1967 Drexel Dragons football team, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
Thanks for the notice! As per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#School_districts (Outcomes of AFD) school districts in the US are universally notable since they are in effect local governments (like municipalities are). Of course it's better to start off with secondary sourcing right off the bat, but I can do this at a later point!
As per the label, AFAIK "refimprove" is used if a school district page links to the official website (verification that it actually exists) but does not yet link to secondary sources.
WhisperToMe (talk) 11:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, WhisperToMe, thanks for creating this. I don't think anyone has questioned its notability that I can see. The article as it stands has no references, so unreferenced seems most appropriate to me. It has an 'external link', which is useful, but doesn't indicate what sources were used when writing it. Have a good day, Boleyn (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I must add in 99.9% of cases it is assumed the official website is being used as a reference somehow (for example this is why lists of schools don't often/usually come with inline references). There is another specific tag to address this: {{inline}} which means "this article needs inline references". WhisperToMe (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've realised why the 17th November AWB tagging didn't work. AWB recognises stuff like external links as references e.g. Special:Diff/875416923. I'll see if I can get around it with regex for the time being but I'll probably ask the developers if there's a way of choosing the tags per citation style. Many thanks for your help on this. SITH(talk)15:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, StraussInTheHouse, there are different opinions on it, with many people feeling external links are references just not labelled right, although they often aren't as well. Happy Christmas, Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As previously noted: "Please do not modify the test result articles as they will be used at WP:BOTREQ to demonstrate what it does". I need the test results to remain as-is. -- GreenC22:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Grahamec, well done for editing for so long. I'm sure 12 years is long enough that you understand about templates and didn't take offence when clearly none was intended. I'll raise whether the template can be amended. Boleyn (talk) 09:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm UnitedStatesian. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Amirul Shafik Che Soh, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
Hi, I'm Onel5969. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Toli Chiefdom, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
Re 1862 City of Dunedin by-elections it is now finished (but still a stub) as have worked out that there was no March poll for Dick & Richardson: Called for after a show of hands on Tuesday 18 March (ODT 18 March, OW 22 March) but then scrubbed Wednesday 19 March as Richardson’s nominator was not on the local roll. And Dick had resigned as he did not want to go to the session in Auckland. NB: the OW 22 March article did not have what happened on the 19th when the poll was scrubbed (a local paper but not up to date!). By combining two or three by-elections in one year into one article, it simplifies checking by-election templates (two separate types of template) and articles which can have a redirect to the one article if necessary. Some distinguished the two in one year with “April 1862” and ”July 1862” in the title, some has (1st) and(2nd), but they can all be given a redirect to the one article. And there are sometimes both “City of Dunedin by-election” and “Dunedin by-election”. NB: never thought of removing the last part (after ?) from Papers Past URLs. Hugo999 (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I want to make some updates to the Microland page on wiki. How do I go about this? I have the new content ready. Can I send it to you for review? And if yes, how? Regards UshaMicroland (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, UshaMicroland. You can just directly make changes to Microland, you don't need to go through another editor. However, from your username I'm guessing it's best you look at WP:COI. Microland as an article has been edited by a lot of WP:SPAs, a lot of editors who seem as if they may work for the company. That does make readers doubt the information. Thanks for your work on Wikipedia, Boleyn (talk) 08:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Trekphiler: Boleyn, I've come across these new stubs while stub-sorting, and put some effort into cleaning them up and creating a new category for them. Trekphiler moved content from Quiller, acknowledging this, and your turning those articles into redirects has now lost that content to the encyclopedia. Please revert, leave the notability tags, and let's see whether some Quiller enthusiast can find sources for notability. I haven't looked in detail at WP:NBOOK today to refresh my memory, I'm just unhappy at seeing information lost like this. And, if you're turning an article into a redirect, please think about leaving the DEFAULTSORT behind - see the listing at Category:Novels by Elleston Trevor where it's not helpful to have titles sorted at "The". PamD10:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PamD, thanks for your work on this. I don't agree that it should be reverted, but won't argue if you do. This editor has a long history of creating articles without reliable refs and with a lack of notability, and I couldn't easily find anything to show it wasn't true in this case. Thanks for the suggestion about defaultsort. Boleyn (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Boleyn, thanks for your email, the article will shortly gain references as soon as the first competition is finished. If you look at the 2018 edition you will see that the article was updated every week throughout the year. The same is planned for this year. Many thanks Racingmanager (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Boleyn, is there a way to disable your Wikipedia tool thingy so it doesn't write on my talk page? I've created over 500 articles, so it's kinda silly that they my new articles are getting reviewed, it didn't use to be like that before. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, HistoryofIran. I think the reason you may have got some review notices lately is that the backlog of new articles is low, so people have a bit more time to scan all new articles. Your creations often show up with 'no citations' next to it in red, which means patrollers might look it over and tag it as needing inline citations or refimprove. If we do, we are meant to let people know as a courtesy, but I am happy to miss it out when it gets to yours (apologies if occasionally I make a mistake and forgot you have asked this, we do thousands, but I should remember the vast majority of the time). If you add inline citations, it's highly unlikely to be looked at as it won't have identified concerns in red next to it, so that's the best way to avoid any messages. I don't know how to disable the tool as such, but can just not use it, although others patrollers might. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that my creations have no or little citations is because it is not required. Adding citations to a article with two lines is unnecessary. On my Kadagistan article I have added sufficient citations for a article of that size, if I added more it would be overkill, unless I expanded it, of course. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kadigastan, for instance, has two paragraphs and 4 sources. It is taking as needing more inline citations because, as only one of the sources is inline, it is unclear which source the other parts of the article come from. It's not a huge deal, but it's right that it was tagged as a needed improvement.
Sharaf al-Din Harun Juvayni is only three lines long (as it appears on my computer, but has several pieces of information within it and several sources used, but it isn't clear at the moment where each bit comes from, so readers can't easily check information. Again, there are worse flaws in an article, but its right that it's tagged as a needed improvement. I also tagged it as a stub. There are no huge issues with the articles I've seen created by you, I've enjoyed reading them. Boleyn (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. wumbolo^^^20:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your due diligence on Saint John Newland. I'm brushing up my Wikipedia skills, and this was my first shot. I mostly fix typos and make other minor page edits. I want to highlight some of the history from my home town and link everything together. It was the 2017 European City of Culture. Who knows? Someone may be interested!!! sugarfish (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message and for creating an article! Boleyn (talk) 07
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chloe Jones (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You just left a tag on NCAA Division I Indoor Track and Field Championships – Men's 60 meter dash complaining about inline citations. You did not detail your complaint on talk. Normally I regard such incomplete messages as vandalism, see my talk page, but since this is so recent, lets try to address this AGF. This is a list article. The sources of the list, two of them, are listed at the bottom. All of the information of this article comes from those two sources. All of the disambiguation is done through my knowledge of these individuals and is backed by the contents of their individual articles. What other inline citations are possible? Just what do you expect? Do you understand the subject you are commenting on? Trackinfo (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You might regard it as rude. You obviously do not know the damage you cause to the articles you tag. You do it often, sometimes two such tags inserted within into multiple articles over a minute's time span. What kind of quality editing is that? And lazy. If you have an issue with the contents of an article, blasting your personal opinion on the front page damages not only the article but the overall credibility of wikipedia. You have a much better option of taking your complaint to the much less public talk page and using . . . words . . . to describe what you think is wrong. Had you not been in such a rush in order to be lazy, in the least, you should have done that additional step. You STILL haven't. All this over a meaningless technicality on a supportive list article that will receive low traffic. This type of drive by tagging happens too frequently, particularly to new articles. Somebody has got to bark back. Tag, its me. Trackinfo (talk) 07:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm Britishfinance. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Bernardo de Iriarte, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Catherine Pole is not a major player but in the context of the genealogical situation in the Tudor period, she has importance. I have never seen a circular link before. If you are going to do that, you ma as well give her her own article. Trahelliven (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Boleyn. I had the idea to start the Tribunal de Paris article when it was the "Featured Tall Building" on SkyscraperCenter.com for December 2018. Also, the French Wikipedia has an article on the Tribunal de Paris, and so does the German Wikipedia. Jim856796 (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a reason why you unreviewed Dylan Connolly? I'm guessing you regard it as unsourced, however there are three external links which clearly reference everything in the article. Kosack (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Kosack, all biographies of living people need inline citations - this had none, and no clear references. 'External links' essentially means 'suggestions for further reading' although sometimes it is also the source - but that needs to be clear. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A one sentence article with three external links is unclear? Links to external statistics sites are used throughout all sporting articles on Wikipedia for sourcing players basic information. Kosack (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's unclear if those were the sources used, and which source was used for which bit - hence why we need inline citations for biographies of living people. No problem with having external links, but there need to be references too. Boleyn (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much anything on a blp is potentially contentious, especially when it includes the full dob (see WP:BLPPRIVACY). The guidelines are that: Citations are especially desirable for statements about living persons, particularly when the statements are contentious or potentially defamatory. In accordance with the biography of living persons policy, unsourced information of this type is likely to be removed on sight. This didn't just lack inline citations, which had no references at all, just suggestions for further reading. Boleyn (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPPRIVACY actually states the exact opposite, we publish dobs by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. A club website (and probably the other two) would fall perfectly into that category. If the subject complains about its inclusion, then we may have an issue but we don't.
Again, the information was not unsourced just not inline sourced. All three of the references used were in direct accordance with the use of external links within the MoS at WP:FOOTBALL, namely two statistic sites and a direct link to the player's club website profile. You even tagged the article as unsourced, when we have Template:No footnotes for this exact reason. The wording of the template documentation clearly states that an article may contain general references, just not inline sources. Kosack (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kosack, I'm unclear why you are sending me all these messages. It needed information to be inline but wasn't tagged as such - readers shouldn't have to rawl to find where the information comes from. There are regularly concerns raised/threats made by notable people who have concerns about the information written on them - we need to be clear. Boleyn (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You unreviewed an article with no explanation, then incorrectly tagged it. So I brought the discussion here. I've already stated why above. Kosack (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware that I was going to be notified when I didn't communicate for a lengthy period of time. As with most Wikipedia users my goal is to fix mistakes and add missing information on pages. Thanks!
CRussG, thanks for replying and your efforts are appreciated. If people take the time to message you, it is best to respond. Creating multiple unreferenced articles causes problems. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the article Max Leo Keller is under-cited, however I don't have any more citations. It was a direct(ish) translation from the German wiki. I copied over the one citation from that article, and checked today to see if there more more. Unfortunately, that's all I have. Mailman9 (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mailman9, it's always difficult with translations but thanks for perservering. I tagged it as unreferenced but see you've improved it since then, so I changed the tag. Thanks for creating this, Boleyn (talk) 08:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bilal190023, thanks for your message. YOu've done everything right, it is submitted for review, it just may take a few days, a maximum of 7 weeks (though that's unlikely). It'll be good for it to have a bit of time as it would be rejected at the moment. It needs referneces from reliable sources and needs to be totally re-written - it reads like an advert and it needs to be more neutral and encyclopaedic. Thanks for starting this, with a bit of work it should be accepted soon. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Boleyn, I saw the Wikipedia:BLPPROD tags on the Ghanaian parliamentarians articles I created but didn't get time to deal with them yet. The reference section completely escaped me when I was creating them. Thanks for getting to them earlier than me to fix them. Regards -Masssly (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
user User:Frank marine is edit the page due to translate from thai article with no english grammar knowledge. I tired to help him prove the article why Wikipeida doen't has a countermeasure to stop this guy edit any page in Wikipedia. Every article that he edit is non-sense and all translate from Thai language from Google Translate with no re-check. I need your help to block him and please check every article that he make which is bullshit article and bullshit action. Thank You 58.8.169.80 (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 58.8.169.80, thanks for contacting me. I don't have the power to block anyone and I am able to log off for a week, but am tagging an experienced admin, Kudpung. Kudpung, do you think it has reached the threshold for action to be taken? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He don't read any protocol of Wikipedia, he always edit it with his pleasure that make Wikipedia article chaotic. Thank for helping please block him as soon as.58.8.169.80 (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Boylyn, I was wondering if you could spare some time to help me with my draft? I got a bizarre message from another person on my page which I see you answered- I looked you up- and wow- you are the ULTIMATE wiki editor. I have worked hard on the new draft- any help, when you have time would be appreciated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Laura_Liguori I got some help from the teahouse which was great and appreciated!
Hi, SilviaTRE388, thanks for your message. I've looked it over and removed imdb as a source, although it's a useful external link. Is it [WP:Autobiography]]? It has a general air of being an advert, I can try to prune that. Thanks for your work, Boleyn (talk) 08:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate the help! Thank you for your time! Any changes please make! I totally trust your decisions and will learn from what you do for my next update! I am learning as I go this is my second article and I have much to learn still! Thank you for your work and for making wiki what is today!
An even more bizarre tag is the fact that you felt a need to leave a reply on User talk:SilviaTRE388 about something I was speaking to a Wikipedia member about. This post is in response to a message you left on their talk page. I was merely expressing to them how I felt about this ongoing experience with draftspace with someone else. I assumed it might be the same feelings for them. Why would you criticize ("Quite a bizarre tag, PeaceShield5" and "passive aggressive and irrelevant...") or comment on something I said to someone else other than you? Also, you didn't leave the message on my talk page. That make it feels like a roundabout and indirect way of critiquing someone without actually confronting them about something, maybe it could even be considered by some as "passive aggressive and irrelevant". Also, other than expressing myself, I stated facts about my experience. I have read some of the comments and messages on your talk page, and whether you accept it or not, Wikipedia members have had problems with some of your actions.
Also, thanks for moving the Draft:The Black Dahlia (graphic novel) to draftspace before I even had time to work on it. It has not been a pleasant experience. I'm fighting for a book to have an article. You may not find it "noteworthy," but it is. So thanks. PeaceShield5 (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't deliberate. At least I didn't see it that way. Nor was it intentional. Again, I did not see it in that way. If it came across that way, Boleyn, I honestly apologize. It wasn't nice, polite, or the right thing to do, no matter how I describe or phrase it. Again, truthfully, I just want to say I'm sorry. PeaceShield5 (talk) 08:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Boleyn, I'll try to find some more references in English to back my translation of the Russian article on the Ural Army.
This is not easy, but i do believe that the Russian article is based on sufficient references in Russian.
In general, i'm convinced that the knowledge in the Western World about this important period in the history of Russia, should be increased.
And i hope translating articles on the English Wikipedia can help, IF the articles are correct of course.
Regards, Filiep (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help me with adding beatport references to each row of tracks that I did? If there is a remix that comes along with it, add the link along with the other. DJAlexander408 19:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)DJAlexander408DJAlexander408 19:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, DJAlexander, I'm afraid I can't find this article and I don't know enough about this area to be sure of adding reliable sources, but good luck with it and thanks fo working on new articles. Boleyn (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well after a while I came back from a break after not logging in for months. Anyway here is one I found on the new page feed, Jerry Miller (I found one earlier today that had about 4 or 5 names come up, but I can't remember what the name was) Wgolf (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not responding to your message earlier, I have had limited time on here recently. The external links added on the articles are enough to serve as citations for the mentioned articles, I just wanted to find something stronger than that. Unfortunately I was not able to, so will use them as citations, and should have it done within the day. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Kaiser matias. Thanks, with 'external links' it can be unclear where you got the information, but if that's where you got it from, they'll be fine as citations/references. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way to get like a list of articles I have created that have been tagged so that I can work on improving them? Like is there a way to search for that info somewhere or would an admin possibly know? Adamtt9 (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great question, Adamtt9. There isn't, but I'll see if a tool can be done to do this - I would love to see my own and work on some from years ago and I'm sure others would find it useful. Your best bet at the moment is to go to 'user contributions' on the left-hand side, tick the box for page creations only, and you can see from there. If you're planning to work through them and would like me to manually make a list of tagged articles, I'm happy to do so, just message me. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
, thanks for your work on it. Boleyn (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Jalen D. Folf (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Welcome back, Wgolf, hope you enjoyed your break. Boleyn (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
