User talk:Boleyn/Archive 10

ANI[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Concerns regarding BrownHairedGirl. Thank you. Jeni ^(talk) 00:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Userpage[edit]

Hello, I was checking out your userpage (to find a new layout for mine) and seen you had some bullets out of place or not there in the "Tudor-related articles" section. I added them, but if you wished them not to be there, please feel free to revert. Just lending a hand. Take Care....NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I hadn't realised. Boleyn3 (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're Welcome! :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Boleyn2 (identical discussion also at Boleyn 3)[edit]

I was advised to keep User:Boleyn2 and 3 and Usertalk:Boleyn 2 and 3 as redirects to User:Boleyn, to reduce any cances of confusion. However, as I was blocked, I don't feel comfortable simply deleting the discussion and restoring the pages as redirects, so have copied it here:

I see that you have finally replied to my post at User talk:Boleyn, but I am placing this message to alert you to the presence of more msgs there from me, because your editing continues to disruptive and to alternate between so many different accounts that you apparently don't read messages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As before, there was only three hours between you leaving me a message and my replying. I created no articles during this time and I know of no requirement that I respond within a shorter timeframe. As stated before, I tend to think about my responses, so they are not made in anger. Boleyn2 (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for because switching between accounts whilst editing the same set of articles is disruptive, and impedes the ability of other editors both to track your edits and to communicate with you. You may still continue to edit under your main account, User:Boleyn. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|This has been investigated twice before (details on my Talk page archives 5 and 8) and found not to be the case. The sole reason for three log-ins is that I mainly work on disambiguaiton pages, many of which seemed to have no one watching them when I first started; I therefore have three logins, each with over 10,000 pages on my watchlist, in order to maintain the pages as they are now. I have not deliberately edited articles with different log-ins, because when I make this mistake it mucks up my watchlist, as well as having a slight chance of confusing others. I have been very clear on my user page and my Talk page that I am one person and that it also reflected in the almost identical usernames; I don't feel there's a significant chance of anyone being confused. It seems to me extremely unfair to block here. I am a committed and experienced editor and have never been deliberately disruptive.}} Boleyn2 (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

See User talk:Boleyn#Multiple accounts

Request handled by: Beeblebrox (talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Thank you. I will now restore this page to a redirect to Usertalk:Boleyn, again to reduce any possible confusion. Boleyn2 (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs[edit]

I find your MP stubs to be very useful. Many times last summer, while reading reams of the driest research imaginable, I was able to simply find out so-and-so was a MP from your stubs. It was much faster to use wikipedia and run into your stubs than do a google search with common British names that could give me tens of thousands of results not containing the information I was seeking. A substub was useful, a red link in an article is worse than a million unusable hits on Robert Brown. Thank you for taking the time to write the stubs.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. I appreciate editors such as yourself who are here to write an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.110.182 (talk) 07:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I really appreciate you taking the time to say so. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Edgcumbe (died 1489)[edit]

Hi. I don't really want to get involved in the dispute which has been going on concerning your stub creation, but would you please consider adding a claim of notability to your stubs ? That's technically A7able, but as he's got a DNB entry, there's presumably plenty of coverage. You really want as a minimum to be creating something the length of Buluggin ibn Muhammad - just two sentences detailing why the subject is a suitable candidate for an article. Thanks. Claritas § 23:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't an article that's been created recently, and I think enough's been said (of both opinions) on whether a sub-stub is better than nothing. He is notable as a courtier and politician, as mentioned in the article. More will be added over time. Boleyn (talk) 05:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now expanded this stub using ODNB. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		The Purple Star
		For being a great long-term contributor who had to deal with a really lousy block and all that unnecessary ANI drama. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Boleyn (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew foster[edit]

Hi, would you be willing to consider WP:Ignore all rules in the case of "Sir Andrew Foster" since:

Person is clearly notable (try google "Sir Andrew Foster")
- but no article exists yet, but links to name do, so not mentioning him may confuse.. Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I should have been clearer on how it didn't meet the guidelines. External links and references don't belong on disambiguation pages. A redlink which has other links to it meets mos:dabrl and is a valid addition. I see an article's now created. Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Sean White (disambiguation)[edit]

I have nominated Sean White (disambiguation), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean White (disambiguation). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've commented on it. Boleyn2 (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Grey (MP)[edit]

Hi Boleyn

The stub you created on John Grey (MP) contained {{UK-MP-stub}}, which is explicitly for members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Since the Parliament of the United Kingdom was created in 1801, this is wrong; he was a member of the Parliament of Great Britain.

Since you established that he was an MP, it would have been helpful if you had tried to place him in a more specific category than Category:British politicians, in this case Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for English constituencies. You can find appropriate categories by looking at similar articles. Those other articles are not hard to find: there is a list of other MPs for Bridgnorth at Bridgnorth (UK Parliament constituency) (to which you linked), and his successor Lord Pigot has long been in that category.

Also, it was wrong to say that he was elected on 2 April 1754; as noted at British general election, 1754, the 1754 election didn't start until 13 April. If you check Leigh Rayment's lists, you'll find the Bridgnorth MPs listed at http://www.leighrayment.com/commons/Bcommons5.htm ... where it says that he was elected on 16 April.

I added some other data to the article from printed sources I have, but all the points above are in sources available to you. Please could you try to check some of these things when creating a stub article to add to your list? Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Hay (politician)[edit]

I have just been tidying up the sub-stub article George Hay (politician), which you created in June and fixed an ambiguous link today.

I have added categories and references, but note a few points:

He was not an ecclesiastical dean; the post of Dean of Arches is that of a judge in an ecclesiastical court, not of a member of the christian clergy as described at dean (Christianity). The article Dean of Arches, to which you linked, explains the nature of the title. It would have been a good idea to check it before disambiguating.
You wrote that he was elected for Stockbridge in In 1757, at the request of Pitt the Elder. Rayment & Stooks Smith both confirm that he was elected, but do you have a source for this assertion that it was at the request of Pitt the Elder?
He was not a Member of Parliament (MP) for Oxford University. See the list of MPs at Oxford University (UK Parliament constituency)#Parliaments_of_Great_Britain_1707-1800_and_of_the_United_Kingdom_1801-1950; he's not there. Nor is he in Leigh Rayment's list of MPs for Oxford University. Since you linked to Oxford University when you wrote the article, you could have checked the list when you created the article.
He is listed in that article as an unsuccessful candidate for Oxford in 1768, and it appears that you did not distinguish between winning an election and losing it.

If you create a sub-stub article to add to your list of articles "created", please try to check that the facts asserted are correct, and at least to check for inconsistencies with the lists to which you link. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Calne constituency mentions that it was at the request of Pitt the Elder, which is where I got it from. But there's no reference in that article, so if you think it should be removed then I wouldn't object to it being taken out. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the Calne/Pitt point can probably stay for now, since it's tagged as needing a ref.

But it's still a great pity that you appear not to have checked the other points. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Henry Russell, 1st Baronet[edit]

The source you provided for Sir Henry Russell, 1st Baronet appears not to support your assertion that he was a politician, so I have removed that claim.

The source says he was a barrister, so I added that instead.

The article as you created it did not assert many facts, and it's a pity that the first sentence appears to be plain wrong.

Since there is no sign of evidence that Russell meets WP:BIO, I have proposed merging the article to Russell Baronets, as has been done with many other baronets for whom notability is not established (see e.g. Lauder Baronets). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence, describing him as a politician, seemed to me to describe a Privy Counsellor, but if you think it inappropriate, then of course change it. I've added my opinion to the merge discussion. Boleyn (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Senior judges are usually appointed as Privy Counsellors. That does not make them politicians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

may refer to?[edit]

I saw you edit and it seems unexplained? I put some detail there, please see if it is correct? Thomas_Martyn_(disambiguation) Tomas Jennings (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit confusing now but I have no idea if it is correct, sorry if you don't want to discus it. Tomas Jennings (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just got your message. I started the page but then got distracted, so finished it ten mins later. Thanks for your work on it. Boleyn (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annulment[edit]

Clearly you're more expert in all things Boleyn than I. So when you say that Anne's own marriage was annuled prior to her deatrh, I'd be inclined to believe you. However, I'd feel better about leaving the Category stand if you'd backup the claim with a citation to that effect. I can't see evidence anywhere in the main article itself. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I'll find a reference. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Always happy to be of help. Excellent work on your stubs - keep it up! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DNB categories[edit]

You may be aware of the work going on at Wikisource to post the old (Victoria-era) Dictionary of National Biography in its entirety. It is clear enough that that is of great potential for referencing and expanding numerous articles you have created. We are just about 25% done with it, and should make good progress in the rest of 2010.

What I wanted to mention is exactly what we do in parallel with posting the articles, as the referencing effort over here. This goes on via several routes. The template {{DNB}} is the attribution template for text taken from the 1885-1900 DNB. It automatically places an article in Category:Articles incorporating DNB text without Wikisource reference until the template is filled in with a link to an article. But there is the other route for referencing, which is by the placement of Category:Articles requiring a direct DNB link on talk pages. This is the "by hand" way of prompting a relevant article to be created (at some point - there are hundreds to do). You will have seen me adding a number of these categories this morning.

Charles Matthews (talk) 09:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had wondered what was being done. It sounds very useful. Boleyn (talk) 07:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab page for James P. Hogan[edit]

There is an author named on all his books James P. Hogan. If James P. Hogan shouldn't go to the James P. Hogan (writer) page, it should go to a page where we list all the James P. Hogans. This is his name as it is used; there's no reason to make it more complex for our users than necessary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If James P. Hogan (writer) is the primary use of James P. Hogan, then he should be moved to that page, with a hatnote for the other of that name. Boleyn (talk) 07:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your name came up...[edit]

Greetings,

I can see that you have a large number of fellow contributors who think you are doing a fantastic job. Since our first interactions I have paid more attention to your activities, and noticed several instances when I thought you had done valuable work. And it was through our interactions that I learned of the change in policy that dab entries that had a red-link should also include a blue-link to an article that used the red-link. I comply with this change since our interaction.

If I recall correctly you did not find our first interaction a positive experience. If I recall correctly you said you felt bullied. If I didn't make it clear back then, let me state now that I didn't intend to make you feel bullied.

I remember you explained, back then, that the reason you used multiple wiki-ids was that you when your watchlist grew longer than 10,000 articles you needed multiple wiki-ids so you could have multiple watchlists that were each of manageable length. My own watchlist grew too long to manage several years ago. I came across, by coincidence, a thread on WP:ANI, where you and another contributor discussed long watchlists, and that other contributor said they had no problem managing a watchlist with 30,000 articles on it.

I wrote to that other contributor. I asked them how they used and managed a watchlist of 30,000 articles.

I voiced the opinion that our current wikimedia software's support for watchlists stopped being useful for our most prolific contributors. I said I would prefer a technical fix, where each single wiki-id could manage multiple watchlists. Or alternatively, support for us to make more focussed queries. I wrote "I think it would be very useful to be able to look at a list of all the articles one has edited in the last 24, 48, or 168 housrs, that have subsequently been edited by someone else."

I am going to repeat that I recognize you are the queen of disambiguation, and that your work is widely admired, and that I have seen instances of your valuable work with my own eyes. I am going to repeat that I didn't intend for you to feel bullied. I am going to repeat that I wouldn't have learned to add a blue-link to dab entries with a red-link, if it weren't for our interaction.

That WP:ANI discussion I read the middle of was one initiated by User:BrownHairedGirl. I recognize that this was strained discussion, or at least the part I saw was strained. In the early part of my note I said that I had had some parallel concerns to hers. We have an obligation to tell contributors when we mention them at WP:ANI. We should probably give people a heads-up if we mention them on a User talk page. So here is the link.

After re-reading it I want to clarify I am not trying to aggravate a strained situation. I may have interacted with BHG at some time in the past, but I have no recollection of doing so. We are not friends or allies. I don't know her any better than I know you -- ie not at all. My main frustrations, from our first interactions, was that your use of multiple wiki-ids didn't seem open and transparent, and, IIRC, it took me something like an hour of detective work to figure out which dab pages you were talking about; and second, IIRC, it did not seem to me that you had understood my frustrations. If our interaction was over a year ago I should have been able to write about that interaction without any lingering frustration. And I failed to do so. My apologies.

In my note to BHG I wrote: "...it would really be helpful if she (ie you) used them (ie multiple wiki-ids) in a more open and transparent manner -- so that for any particular article, all the edits related to it were made with a single one of her wiki-ids." If you tried to tell me, back then, that you usually already did this, and the confusing instances that frustrated me so much were anomalies, then my apologies. Or maybe you did understand why I was frustrated, and you have taken that feedback into account. And, FWIW, I am just another contributor, with no more authority than you have, whose opinion is of no more value than yours.

Please continue to keep up all the good work that has earned you all that admiration. And, if you are open to feedback, and, if you aren't already doing so, I would like to encourage you to consider making sure for each article you work on, you use just a single one of your wiki-ids.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, Geo: I did not initiate an ANI thread on Boleyn. That thread was opened by Jeni, who likes denouncing me for anything she possibly can, and the discussion wisely moved from that silliness onto what to do about Boleyn's prolific creation of abysmal sub-stubs. In the end no action was taken, and sadly the creation of abysmal look-I-creatded-anotrher-page sub-stubs continues. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Thank you for your message. I do indeed endeavour to use 1 wiki-Id on an article, but I edit so many that that sometimes doesn't happen. I did (do) understand your frustration and have done everything suggested to me to make it clear, e.g. almost identical names, links/redirects and explanation at top of user and talk pages. I don't think it causes much confusion (there is the odd episode of course) but would prefer to have 1 ID for simplicity's sake. The ANI was actually initiated by another editor about concerns about BHG's editing regarding articles I'd created, not about my editing, but as I was on holiday at the time I couldn't contribute to the discussion fully and my editing was discussed at length. I haven't been editing much since then and am winding down my disambiguation work, with a view to quitting Wikipedia, as I've just had enough at the moment. I want to focus on creating articles and cleaning up dabs, but I find disputes on here draining and usually quite unnecessary.

As for the ids, when my Boleyn watchlist got high, I checked and the guidelines said that after 8800 edits, the watchlist usually becomes very slow and basically unmanageable. I therfore created Boleyn2 and did the same with Boleyn3 when Boleyn2 reached this benchmark. However, I have expanded the watchlists to between 11000 and 13000 without any obvious ill effects. Disambiguation pages aren't watched by many (or sometimes any) editors and so I watch most hndis pages, which has removed a lot of vandalism and errors. But I have had to delete thousands from my watchlist to keep my numbers down. I would very much like to see a technical solution to this, and would be open to merging accounts and watchlists if this could be easily undone if it does slow down ridiculously.

Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The warning about watchlist performance is way out of date: my watchlist of 32,065 pages works just fine.

Here's how to merge them reversibly:

Open a text editor such as notepad or textpad
Login as Boleyn3.
Go to "my watchlist"
Click on "Edit raw watchlist"
In the edit box that opens up, press Ctl-A to select all, then Ctl-C to copy it
Switch over to you text editor, press Control V to paste in the watchlist.
Save the file as "Boleyn3 watchlist.txt"

Repeat steps 1 to 7 for your other two accounts, Boleyn2 and Boleyn

Then Edit raw watchlist again for User:Boleyn, and paste in at the top of that edit box the contents of your files "Boleyn3 watchlist.txt" and "Boleyn2 watchlist.txt", then click "update watchlist" at the bottom

Now they are merged. The watchlists for Boleyn2 and Boleyn3 remain unchanged, and you can still check their watchlists separately as before if you ever want to go back to doing that. The switchover should take less than 5 minutes.

You will find that the size of the merged watchlist is less than the total of the three separate watchlists, because of the duplication between them.

.......

If you try the merged watchlist and decide that you want to separate out Boleyn2 & Boleyn3's watchlists out of Boleyn's, then it's easy:

Open up your "Boleyn watchlist.txt" in your text editor
Login as Bolen, click on "my watclist" and then on Edit raw watchlist". In the box, press Ctl-A to select all, then DEL to delete it.
Switch to "Boleyn watchlist.txt", press Ctl-A to select all, Ctl-C to copy
Switch back to the window switch your raw watchlist, and paste in the original watchlist with Ctl-V. Click "update watchlist" at the bottom, and your're done.

Again, that should take less than 5 minutes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS If your priority is to watch hndis pages, then a watchlist is not the most effective way of doing that, because the watchlist will never be complete. Much better to use related changes for Category:Human name disambiguation pages, which will show such changes to all hndis pages, regardless of whether you have edited them before. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now merged the watchlists and will only use the User:Boleyn log-in. Boleyn (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another unreferenced and untrue sub-stub[edit]

Hi Boleyn

I see you are still at work churning out sub-stubs to try to boost your article count. One of the latest is William Pirrie Sinclair, an unreferenced two-liner which implied that Sinclair had been a Liberal Unionist MP for Antrim in 1885.

That is of course, impossible, since the Liberal Unionist Party did not exist before that constituency was abolished, and I will now tidy up the article.

Another is Scrope Howe, 1st Viscount Howe, which added nothing to the existing list article Earl Howe.

It remains a great pity that you continue to wilfully degrade the quality of the encyclopedia by creating so many abysmal sub-stubs, which seem to be of two types: a) those which absolutely nothing to existing pages; or b) introduce factual inaccuracies.

There are plenty of editors who are knowledgeable on these subjects, who do some research before creating articles to ensure that the facts asserted are correct.

Sub-stubs such as William Pirrie Sinclair add nothing to wikipedia. The mislead readers until such time as editors who (unlike you) do have some care for accuracy and quality divert themselves from other tasks into tidying up after you.

Dozens of new articles on MPs are created every month by editors who check the facts and reference them. If you wnated to start writing more such articles, that would be great ... but in most cases, you achieve only two things:

A page which needs to be completely rewritten by an editor who takes more acre than you do
An increment in your counter of pages created.

Rather than making so much work for others to tidy up, which don't you pay less attention to your I-clicked-the-save-button stubs-I-created counter, and keep the stubs in userspace unless and until you have checked the facts and checked that they add something to existing articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Sinclair should not have been in Category:UK MPs 1885–1886, to which you added him in this edit. His constituency was abolished in 1885, and he was not re-elected until the 1886 general election. This information is all available in the articles to which you linked, but appear not to have checked.

Once again, even a very short sub-stub article created by you has to be checked in its entirety by other editors, because even the most basic facts are likely to be wrong. It would be a lot quicker for other editors to create these articles from scratch than to check which of your assertions are false and tidy up the mess. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And another one[edit]

William Baird (MP) is another example of a sub-stub which misleads.

It is highly misleading to write that On 2 May 1846, he became Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds, because as you would have seen if you read even the first paragraph of the article Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds to which you linked, the post is in fact a legal fiction, a nominal "office of profit under The Crown" (from the holder cannot, in practice, extract any profit at all), which disqualifies an individual from sitting as a Member of Parliament. Its sole purpose is a procedural ploy to enable the holder to resign her or his seat in Parliament.

What actually happened on 2 May 1846 was that Baird resigned from the House of Commons. It is a near-certainty that he never went around describing himself as "Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds", or was ever called upon to do anything in that role.

You appear not to have known that, and not to have followed the link which you added to the article would have explained it to you. And because you saved the page to mainspace, you created yet another of the hundreds of inaccurate or misleading sub-stubs which other need to correct to avoid misleading readers.

You have had offers of help in creating better stubs, but you still persist in churning out these inaccuracies and leaving others to tidy up after you, first of all by correcting the misleading and inaccurate bits, and then by adding the references which you didn't even stop to look for. Do you not care at all about the accuracy of pages that you publish in this way? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that it is a legal fiction, but that he technically was the Steward from this date. If you think it could be better worded, then of course do so. Sending me long messages every time you think I could have written a stub better is continuing what you were taken to ANI for, that other editors felt you were bullying me. If you spot something in a newly-created article, or any article, that you can improve, then do so. Nominating everything I create for deletion - even when the subject has an ODNB article, and that is referenced in the stub - isn't the best use of your time, when you could be continuing the excellent work you do in improving articles. I'm interested to hear that the watchlist info is out of date, and will look further into this. I've said everything to you that I have to say, as even here I am repeating myself. Any further messages will not be read fully - if you contact me asking me to change something or expand on my sources, that's one thing and I'm happy to do that - if you continue to write every time you see something that could be improved, that is not something I will read carefully, as I have had enough of your harassment - I really thought the ANI would at least slow it down. Boleyn (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn, I did not "nominate everything you create for deletion", nor anything like it. I I have nominated a very small subset of them, merely the very worst of a lot of these very poor sub-stubs.

I could of course send to much shorter messages. In each of these cases I could have written the same boilerplate text: please stop saving to mainspace any more of the under-referenced sub-stubs which either add nothing to existing or content, or which misinform or mislead the reader.

Instead I put in the time to explain to you the precise problems in each case, and you complain about the length of the message.

An editor who was in good faith trying to improve the quality of their contributions would note the staggeringly high level of inaccuracy and error in these articles, and try to take some remedial action, such as seeking advice and assistance before saving them to mainspace, and checking the facts before moving on to add the sub-stub as another notch on their page-creation count. Instead you show not the slightest concern about the astonishingly high level of very basic errors in very short articles, and try to call deflect the focus from the problems by mis-labelling it as harrassment.

As to your suggestion that in future you will cease to read the messages carefully, you have been giving a very good impression of not reading them carefully so far.

You do very good work maintaining dab pages, and you maintain high standards of care and accuracy when doing that. It's a great pity that you so show so little of the same concern when trying to expand your articles-I-created-list :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On this thread[edit]

Can I comment that starting a thread such as this with I see you are still at work churning out sub-stubs to try to boost your article count is an assumption of bad faith? And that we have mechanisms for cleanup that stop short of nomination for deletion, which I question as a way of dealing with mis-statements in articles which can reasonably be raised on Talk pages. The tone of what I read above is not such as to make me believe there is going to be any meeting of minds here. I deprecate this sort of personalised attack in connection with content matters. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, these sub-stubs are created for the purpose of boosting article-count. They serve no other purpose, and per WP:AGF I am not required to assume good faith in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

After trying AFDs of some of these pointless pages, which survived because a lot of other editors worked to expand them up to the point of useful stubs, I have not nominated any more of these sub-stub "articles" for deletion on the basis of their high rate of mis-statements. However, I have nominated a small proportion of them for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A10 because they add nothing to existing articles. For many of those stubs which go beyond the list articles, I have completely rewritten them, to correct the errors of fact and expand then. Most of these articles assert only three or four facts, and in most cases at least one of those facts is demonstrably false, as would be shown even by checking them against existing wikipedia articles.

Boleyn has rejected suggestions by me and by others that she seek a mentor, or that she create these sub-stubs in user-space in order to take time to check them, or that she create fewer stubs and spend more time on each of them in order to get them right. The result is that nearly every one of these stubs requires correction by another editor in order to avoid presenting the reader with blatant falsehoods or highly misleading statements.

An editor who was creating pages in good faith would take these problems on board, by steps such as those I suggested above or something else. The fact that Boleyn continues to knowingly degrade wikipedia's content by adding so much false material looks to me like a pretty clear indication of an editor who is not making a good faith effort to improve wikipedia.

I would be delighted to be proven wrong, by seeing Boleyn take steps to stop this flow of inaccuracy, but I hold out little hope of it. I have been posting these explanations partly in the increasingly forlorn hope that Boleyn might choose to learn something from them, but also as a record which is likely to be needed at an RFC (or some such venue) unless she focuses on quality of their content rather than simply on counting new pages created. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously said that I do not create articles for any reason other than wanting to add to Wikipedia. That you have repeated on several occasions that it is to increase my edit count or count of created articles isn't true, has no basis, and I wish you would stop repeating it. I have improved the categorisation and referencing of the stubs I've created, spent more time on them and created less. You haven't informed me of deletion notices, so I've not had an opportunity to improve the articles, and not everyone agrees with you on the issue of very short articles - there are many opinions on this. Keep checking up on every article I create and sending me messages assuming bad faith, and going into detail about any mistakes/things which could be improved is unnecessary. Boleyn (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn, if you actually wanted to add to wikipedia, you would stop creating stubs which add precisely nothing to wikipedia. It probably takes as long for you to add the to your list-of-articles-I-created as it does to create the pages.

You have plenty of opportunity to improve articles at the point when you create them, by ensuring that they meet the very minimal test of saying more than an existing article. It takes a lot of time checking all the piles of inaccuracies in your sub-stubs, and since you pay little or no attention to explanations given, I'm not going to waste time notifying you of speedy deletion tags when you can't be bothered adding some content before pressing the save button.

Checking every article you create is not "unneccessary", much as I wish it was. On the contrary, it's necessary because most of them are so bad that they need immediate fixing, usually remedying errors which could have been avoided if you did some basic checks. If you don't like your edits being checked, stop introducing so many factual inaccuracies, and the messages will stop. In the meantime, though, I will continue to notify you of these problems, so that neither you nor anyone else can be in any doubt that you are aware of the high level of problems, but simply don't want to know about it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I am only here because I have been doing some "triage" on the stubs on User:Boleyn in the past couple of days. It appears to me that the comments by User:BrownHairedGirl are exaggerated. When I say "triage", I mean I have been taking steps to get those that can be expanded by public domain material from the old DNB into the correct "maintenance category". I have also added a date or two, some categories, and found one merge to a different name. I haven't met anything where CSD-A10 would be appropriate.

Now, what I think is that any valid stub should be treated on its own merits, quite independent of author. I have been editing for seven years, and Wikipedia was founded on stubs and their expansion.

I think the threat to apply for speedy deletion without notification is simply out of order.

Charles Matthews (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is indeed founded on stubs, but not on mass-created sub-stubs with no concern for quality. See WP:STUB, esp WP:STUB#Ideal_stub_article which stresses the importance of research.

I quite agree that stubs should be treated on merit. I came to track Boleyn's stubs because I kept on encountering so many very poor sub-stubs from the same creator that it made sense to track them at source. I have not encountered any other editor who is consistently creating so many very short stubs with such a high level of inaccuracy (though I did notice that one other editor had done a spurt of slightly better stuff about 8 months ago). If you look back up this page you will see details of dozens of them where I have documented the problems.

With most stubs I encounter, I just fix the article and move on. Some editors I'll give a pointer to sources and suggestions for improvement, and most editors are very grateful for any suggestions because they are keen to improve the quality of their contributions. Sadly, that's not the case with Boleyn, who shows no interest at all in the errors in her sub-stubs, and specifically says that she doesn't want to be informed of "about any mistakes/things which could be improved".

That's the core of the problem here. A good faith editor would want to know "about any mistakes/things which could be improved", but as noted in a discussion elsewhere, these stubs are just a make-work: error-laden snippets which take more time for others to clean up than Boleyn puts into creating them.

As WP:STUB#Basic_information says, "Note that if a small article has little properly sourced information, or if its subject has no inherent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article". The stubs which Boleyn creates are mostly on notable people, but mostly have little or no properly sourced information. That's why speedy deletion is an accepted solution for many of them, although I have been very sparing in applying it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll grant that "... these sub-stubs are created for the purpose of boosting article-count," if someone else will grant no good faith can be assumed in her reasons for this discussion when started with I see you are still at work churning out sub-stubs to try to boost your article count.

Please stop badgering this user. Take your problem with substubs to community boards or your problem with this user to an RFC. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 23:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Chaine[edit]

Hi Boleyn

Yesterday you created the article James Chaine, which was referenced to only one page: http://www.scotchirish.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=3063

That link redirects to http://www.web-mania.com/data-transfer.html , so I can't verify the page ... but which of the characteristics of a reliable source is filled by a web forum? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to have even considered whether Charles Matthews has a point. As that website is currently down, I really can't comment. Boleyn (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have considered it, and my considerations are above. I look fwd to your reply when the website is back up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir David Scott, 2nd Baronet[edit]

I presume that when you created Sir David Scott, 2nd Baronet, you had some reliable sources for the facts you assert there.

Do you intend to add references to those reliable sources, or are you leaving that for someone else to fix? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl, when will you cease stalking Boleyn? Another editor on here has expressed concerns regarding your actions, do I need to take this to ANI yet again? Jeni ^(talk) 00:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jeni and Charles Matthews. I hate to not respond to people's messages on my Talk page, but I think I have to stop responding to BHG as this has been going on for weeks and is, as far as I can see, obsessive stalking. Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly has to be a better way of going over this ground. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest way of resolving this would be for Boleyn to try to meet some basic quality standards, for example by refraining from creating a wholly unreferenced stub such as this one. As noted at WP:STUB, wholly unreferenced stubs may be deleted; I don't intend to do that, so I have notified the editor of the problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that WP:STUB is an editing guideline, not a policy page. It contains a sentence saying "The key is to provide adequate context—articles with little or no context usually end up being speedily deleted". It does not suggest that this is any sort of policy - obviously it subordinates to CSD policy. It also has a sentence "Note that if a small article has little properly sourced information, or if its subject has no inherent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article". This is not about speedy deletion, just deletion. It is also advisory. That's about it.

WP:IDEALSTUB is a section of that page, and it seems that what we are really talking about is that some of the stubs on User:Boleyn are not "ideal stubs" in that sense.

Charles Matthews (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme see if I understand this right. Charles, it seems to me that you saying that creating a wholly unreferenced stub is not ideal, but it's still absolutely fine, and no cause for concern. Is that what you mean? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a permissible use of the site. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not expressly forbidden, but per WP:STUB it is deprecated, and has been deprecated by consistent consensus for a long time. It is not forbidden, because creating a simple stub page is a first step for many editors, who shoukd be encouraged and helped to improve the nature of their contributions, and not bitten.

However, what we have here is an experienced but lazy editor who repeatedly creates pages which do not meet the lowest quality threshold for inclusion (e.g. another from the last few days: William Baird MP), and who objects to being reminded of that quality threshold. WP:V is not a guideline, it's a core policy. Do you think that Boleyn is right to ignore it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is an explicit deprecation in WP:STUB. And I think it unacceptable, period, to call another editor "lazy" in that fashion. Under WP:NPA ("It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user") I think you should absent yourself from this page. You are clearly too personally vested in this matter to do the slightest good. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, do you know of a better term to describe an editor who repeatedly creates sub-stub articles for which readily-available sources exist, but who neither references the articles nor wants to be reminded that they should be referenced?

If you've got an alternative, I'll use that instead. But per WP:SPADE, I will not desist from asserting that Boleyn is knowingly creating articles which fail basic standards for inclusion, and unless you can suggest a better word, lazy seems like an appropriate and fairly mild description. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Just a thought[edit]

I actually think (well, I would, but bear with me) that if you concentrated for a bit on DNB stubs ... this might pass, let's say. You know the DNB missing articles pages - unfortunately the OCR for the summaries there is sometimes bad, but there is an online version at archive.org I can point you to, it's all public domain and can be linked to the "Read Online" version there, and I know that numerous of the stubs you have created do correspond to DNB articles. Send me a mail if this of interest, and I can explain in detail. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I actually had a similar idea. I've mainly been creating missing DNB stubs lately, but unfortunately even some of these, with a DNB reference, have been speedily deleted or nominated for speedy deletion by BHG on grounds of brevity. I have also merged my watchlist after a (quickly overturned) indefinite block on me by BHG for using three log-ins. I have continued to create the odd politician stub partly because there's such a need and partly because I don't want to be bullied out of it when it's adding information to Wikipedia. I have access to the current DNB and have been using this. If there's any way I could be of more use to the project, I'm happy to look into it. Boleyn (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any dispute that an entry in the DNB is more than adequate evidence of notability (and if there was any dispute, I'd defend the notaibility of a person with DNB entry). However a sub-stub which simply says "X existed" is not adding info to wikipedia, and in most cases those articles remain eligible for speedy deletion because an existing article says far more about the topic. (I did not invent WP:CSD#A10, and have had no hand in developing it. If you don't like WP:CSD#A10, then try to have it changed, but until then the criteria stand, and since you know what they are, you know how to create articles whch are not eligible for speedy deletion).

OTOH, a few sentences, referenced to the DNB, and checked to endure that the facts stand up ... that's fine, a great starting point for expansion. It takes longer, and doesn't boost your article-I-created counter so quickly, but if that counter is not your priority, then there's be no problem. (I think it is your priority; you deny that, and I'd be happy for you to prove me wrong).

As to politicians, I quite agree that there is need for many more articles, and ... but you really do need to distinguish between "adding information to Wikipedia" and creating a page which does nothing except duplicate info elsewhere or which introduces basic factual errors. Beyond the add-nothing sub-stubs my concern remains that you create so many stubs which are one or more of: a) unreferenced b) factually inaccurate in key points; c) misleading to the reader ... and when these basic problems are drawn to your attention, your reaction remains that it's fine for others to have to tidy up after you.

You clearly put a lot of energy into wikipedia. Why not put that energy into work which doesn't require others to do lots of corrections in your wake? Fewer, but better stubs would be one way of doing it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, send me a mail, and we can discuss this without the crosstalk. The issues are not quite as simple as implied above, but you'd make a good "recruit" to those who work on the DNB in some way or another, and I can't think of another reference source on biography that would offer a similarly broad scope to you. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up![edit]

I've examined your contributions to wikipedia and am a little surprised at Brownhaired Girl's response here, in my view it appears to constitute as cyber bullying.... From what I 've seen your work is commendable not to mention clearly encyclopedic and has a lot of potential. What a lot of people are blind to see is that stubs , even if they have minimal content are more valuable thay some people are letting on, specially in encouraging others to edit wikipedia. The difference is they need to contain some info and ideally have a reference. Obviously the long term goal is for each article to be full length and developed but most book encyclopedias I've seen contain a brief summary similar to many of our "stubs" anyway. I disagree that certain stubs if they are correctly categorized/stub tagged/reference require more cleanup work. The articles which demand the most work are stale five year old full length articles like Fajardo, Puerto Rico which should probably be completed wiped clean and restarted with references from scratch. They are the problematic articles, not verifiable stubs. I've had a lot of personal attacks for my "sub stubs" on wikipedia Boleyn, even though I've created and expanded far more than most people on here. If you want somebody to talk to feel free to visit my talk page or email me. You are most certainly welcome to help me with DNB articles.

As for speedy deletion tags. I've restarted previously deleted articles in the past few days, such as TUTUN-CTC which were blindly deleted by trigger happy admins who clearly did not bother to research the article first before deciding to nuke it. The "delete all" appraoch is more damaging than people realise and Id wager that any of the articles I restarted by now would have been referenced and more developed by now if they had not been deleted. The only problem I see is that occasionally you create unreferenced articles. If you could ensure that at least a fact or two is referenced I can't see why there would be a problem. Keep up the good work. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, I appreciate it. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Blofeld, you "disagree that certain stubs if they are correctly categorized/stub tagged/reference require more cleanup work".

You appear to be saying that you disagree with me ... but actually I agree with all of that as far as it goes. If the stubs are indeed correctly categorised, correctly stub-tagged, and referenced, then they don't require more cleanup unless they are factually wrong, as many of Boleyn's stubs have been. The ongoing problem is that huge numbers of them do contain one or more of those flaws, and many of the rest have no meaningful content, and I'm astonished that you commend such sloppy work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but you are forgetting one important thing BHG. We are all volunteers here and are under no obligation to add a single thing to wikipedia. WIkipedia is supposed to be enjoyable and have an ameniable atmosphere and mutual encouragement. You are yelling persistently at Boleyn who in good faith is trying to help wikipedia with new articles. Her articles are not sloppy, you want sloppy articles go read some articles on Indian/Pakistani towns and districts. Some may have needed a reference. But to me articles like James Chaine are extremely desirable new articles for our encyclopedia and is exactly the traditional sort of content we need. If Boleyn can ensure that she always cites a source and does not create unreferenced stubs who really don't have a case against her, overall she is doing great and much needed work as evidenced by articles such as James Chaine. And to persist in tagging articles from national dictionaries like the Oxford one for notability which are universally accepted to be notable comes across to me as petty victimization and that you have some vendetta against her. Just give her some space and lay off her for heaven's sake. The only reason why you haven't scared off Boleyn from ever bothering to edit wikipedia again is because she evidently cares about wikipedia and to develop it as a resource in her own time without payment. Such editors should be commended and not attacked. Sure, give her some advice to ensure cleanup in future is minimal but the way you are treating her is out of order. Editors who really care about the project and are willing to dedicate a lot of time to developing content should be encouraged, not bullied into submission. Boleyn is a valuable editor and must be treated with respect. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr B, please check your facts:

She has continued to create wholly unreferenced stubs: (1& 2

As repeatedly stated, my concern with the 1-line DNB-refereced subs-tubs has not been the notability of the topic, but the fact that they fail WP:CSD#A10: they say less about the topic than is covered in existing articles
I'm sure there is lousy content elsewhere in wikipedia, but that doesn't make this lousy content acceptable. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
I have no desire to drive Boleyn off wikipedia. I just want her to stop creating stubs which either add nothing to wikipedia or are so flawed that they require cleanup and correction regardless of whether they are expanded, such as her misleading and miscategorised stub on James Chaine, which you bizarrely think was good work
If Boleyn was sincere about improving the quality of her contributions, she would be actively seeking out guidance on how to improve her contributions. Instead, she persistently rejects any notification of the problems as "unnecessary".

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn does need to reference her articles. You are right about that. If I was just passing and saw you had asked her several times to reference her articles I wouldn't blink an eye. But there is something about your edit summaries and way you are approaching her which comes across to me as deeply unpleasant. I would hardly describe the original stub as "abysmal". It was fine except it need a bit of flesh and a reference or two. Abysmal articles are those devoid of any content, disastrously unencyclopedic and completely unwikified/uncategorized/illegible/utter nonsense. Basically all they need is a source and a bit of expansion. I believe you are exaggerating the degree of poor editing. Boleyn, can you please ensure you source your articles in future, that way I don't think BHG has a case against you. It can be frustrating if you ask somebody several times to do something to save cleanup later and they don't listen. I've been peed off many times when newbies have created loads of stubs with no categories/sources as it means a lot of cleanup work sorting them out later when they could get it right first time. I spend my time instructing them exactly how to categorize add a stub tag and I get no response and they continue to ignore me. It gets frustrating, I understand. So Boleyn if you can ensure that your new articles are sourced and don't require cleanup I think you'll be fine. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for James Chaine I am looking at the article in its present state which is perfectly acceptable and a most welcome addition. Every article has to start somewhere and any article can develop quickly on wikipedia so I look at articles in their present state as they are now. I agree though that if the James Chaine article could be sourced and written like that upon creation this would be more ideal, but idealism is rarely practice on wikipedia. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have started ensuring that all articles I create are sourced, and have been going back over those I've created previously to see if I can improve them. Boleyn (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unref[edit]

Hi Boleyn

I see that you have just added {{unref}} tags to what seems to be about a dozen unreferenced articles.

As a small point of formatting: per WP:FOOTERS, succession boxes should be below the references section, not the other way round.

More importantly, since these unreferenced articles all appear at first glance to have been created by you, are you are going to reference them? Presumably you know where you sourced their contents from. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These articles were created by collating information from existing Wikipedia articles and so obviously I can't reference that. I have therefore tagged them as unreferenced, and have worked my way through most of them, adding references. Boleyn (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I[edit]

Your not engaging User:BrownHairedGirl is a good idea. However, for some reason, maybe you two know each other in real life?, she can't seem to do anything but personally badger you. I know this has gone to AN/I before, and, maybe it won't help, but this has got to stop. BrownHairedGirl's behaviour has reached a very destructive level.

[1]

--IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I really appreciate you trying to stop this and have commented at the thread. I doubt we know each other in real life, we are, I think, in different countries. She does seem to be devoting all her time to me at the moment, but hopefully she'll return to her good work soon - although I've seen no sign of it slowing down or stopping without further intervention. Thanks again, Boleyn (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Arthur Ingram[edit]

The article Arthur Ingram has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Off2riorob (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I've expanded it slightly and added a reference. It still needs more work, but the subject is clearly notable. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn, can you avoid Bare URLs in reference and try to fill it out with at least the publisher? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm not sure how this could be done as it's from a website rather than a book, so from what I can see I don't know who would count as the publisher. I'm happy to take any advice on how to do that. Boleyn (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how you cite from web. IN line just add a {{ }} around it and place this between the ref markers.

Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Publisher - from a website if your not totally sure you can add, the web address like knottingley.org .. or I could have added Knottingley and Ferrybridge online... it is not imperative to exactly know the answer but better to add some attribution than none at all, hope this helps. Feel free to ask me if you are unsure about citing and I will happily help if I can. Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources[edit]

It does not take long to cite your content correctly, try like this is quite easy when you try it a couple of times.Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<ref>{{cite web|url= add the url here|title= add the title here|publisher= add the publisher here|date= add the date the article was published here|accessdate= add the date you viewed the content here}}</ref>

See my instruction above with the parameters which are required. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreak[edit]

I will be taking a long wikibreak as I just can't take any more of this. This has recently started to feel like a job I'm not doing well enough, rather than me volunteering my time because I enjoyed it and thought it was important. I may pop back on to look at messages but am unlikely to edit for a while, and see if I think I still have anything to contribute to the project. Thanks for all the support I've received over the last two and a half years, particularly in recent weeks. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What, because of one person? Honestly, it will blow over. I am about to nominate Arthur Ingram for a DYK between you and I and you will not be here to see it hit the main page. I am happy to expand a few more of your recent articles and get on the main page. All you need to do it follow my example and learn how to reference properly,in the long run I think you'll find it quite enjoyable once the nagging stops. Take a short break if needs be, you don't deserve to be criticised to heavily. Nobody deserves that. I believe Brown Haired Girl got a bit annoyed asking you to reference articles that's all. If you look around, you'll find that most people here support you. I for one am perfectly happy for you to create stubs, however small providing they have a reference as I know you know what notability is and Arthur Ingramis exactly the sort of missing article this encyclopedia needs. I think BHG is greatly underestimating your stubs, they are highly important for finding missing notable content and encouraging other editors to expand them. I'd never have come across Arthur Ingram otherwise. You see? Heads up, now help me write some more articles and help get you the acclaim you deserve. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to second Dr. Blofeld - please don't go. (Take a short break, by all means - those are healthy and help clear the mind sometimes.) But you're doing fine and valuable work, and I'm happy to see expanded coverage of British parliamentarians. (Especially as an American - I wouldn't know where to begin on the subject.) Referencing's a bore, I know - it's always been my least favorite part of article writing. (Doesn't help that when I was in college I was about the only one using MLA; everyone else had been taught using Chicago style. :-) ) But chin up - and like I said, please don't go. Wikipedia will be much the poorer for your absence. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think it all over. More than that, think over the DNB! You know where the other end of the rainbow is for the missing DNB articles, if you want a change. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why such articles are important because in turn they root out other notable missing articles. For instance I've started George Geldorp and Richard Goldthorpe to rid of red links. Look how short the Goldthorpe article is too, but if is well sourced... Seriously we need you more than anybody thinks here, I cna't do the DNB on my own!! Have you seen the extent of it!!. Its your encyclopedia as much as anybodys, you should feel free to do what you think is best for the project. If you do return in a few days I promise I'll do a patch up job on your head and sew it back on, I may even buy you an auburn rinse to woo the fellas. I may be an aevil doctor, but I am well trained in anatomical "engineering". My kitty once had his tail bitten off by my aevil piranha... you can imagine.. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm - Goldthorpe as a Tudor period MP represents a gap in our coverage that I'm very conscious of, in that in many DNB articles there are mentions of MPs who are not on the lists here, given that they tend to be solid from 1660 onwards but patchy for earlier times than that. Work to do! Anyway, drop by http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User_talk:Charles_Matthews for a quite different perspective on things. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's what I mean. The important thing is that these DNB/ODNB articles mention notable figures of older periods which don't themselves have articles in the dictionaries and also mention notable historical buildings etc. Then in turn when you do a search you can find mention of them, often biographies of them in local history sites/old books or enough to gather for an article. Especially MPs, prominent businessmen, notable church figures etc. The coverage in parts is frightfully sparse the further we go back, especially pre-industrial revolution. First port of call though we must concentrate on getting the PD biographies onto here. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everyone and beg you not to go! Don't let some of the Wikipedia scum put you off, you are better than that! Just to make clear, I am singling out no particular editor in that comment, more generalising on the state of some of our editor base! Jeni ^(talk) 23:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, it's your choice. If you don't mind I've highjacked some of your Tudor period articles. East of Borschov 16:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn, there really is no reason for you to run off!!! Brown Haired Girl also creates small stubs like this. The difference is that she references them. If you return and start creating stubs with references there will be no problem. I'm certain that Brown Haired Girl feels the same way. Just come back and don't let what happened phase you. If for some reason it continues, even if you reference articles then it would be a cause for concern. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)== ANI ==[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Concerns regarding BrownHairedGirl. Thank you. Jeni ^(talk) 00:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Userpage[edit]

Hello, I was checking out your userpage (to find a new layout for mine) and seen you had some bullets out of place or not there in the "Tudor-related articles" section. I added them, but if you wished them not to be there, please feel free to revert. Just lending a hand. Take Care....NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I hadn't realised. Boleyn3 (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're Welcome! :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Boleyn2 (identical discussion also at Boleyn 3)[edit]

I was advised to keep User:Boleyn2 and 3 and Usertalk:Boleyn 2 and 3 as redirects to User:Boleyn, to reduce any cances of confusion. However, as I was blocked, I don't feel comfortable simply deleting the discussion and restoring the pages as redirects, so have copied it here:

I see that you have finally replied to my post at User talk:Boleyn, but I am placing this message to alert you to the presence of more msgs there from me, because your editing continues to disruptive and to alternate between so many different accounts that you apparently don't read messages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As before, there was only three hours between you leaving me a message and my replying. I created no articles during this time and I know of no requirement that I respond within a shorter timeframe. As stated before, I tend to think about my responses, so they are not made in anger. Boleyn2 (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for because switching between accounts whilst editing the same set of articles is disruptive, and impedes the ability of other editors both to track your edits and to communicate with you. You may still continue to edit under your main account, User:Boleyn. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|This has been investigated twice before (details on my Talk page archives 5 and 8) and found not to be the case. The sole reason for three log-ins is that I mainly work on disambiguaiton pages, many of which seemed to have no one watching them when I first started; I therefore have three logins, each with over 10,000 pages on my watchlist, in order to maintain the pages as they are now. I have not deliberately edited articles with different log-ins, because when I make this mistake it mucks up my watchlist, as well as having a slight chance of confusing others. I have been very clear on my user page and my Talk page that I am one person and that it also reflected in the almost identical usernames; I don't feel there's a significant chance of anyone being confused. It seems to me extremely unfair to block here. I am a committed and experienced editor and have never been deliberately disruptive.}} Boleyn2 (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

See User talk:Boleyn#Multiple accounts

Request handled by: Beeblebrox (talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Thank you. I will now restore this page to a redirect to Usertalk:Boleyn, again to reduce any possible confusion. Boleyn2 (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs[edit]

I find your MP stubs to be very useful. Many times last summer, while reading reams of the driest research imaginable, I was able to simply find out so-and-so was a MP from your stubs. It was much faster to use wikipedia and run into your stubs than do a google search with common British names that could give me tens of thousands of results not containing the information I was seeking. A substub was useful, a red link in an article is worse than a million unusable hits on Robert Brown. Thank you for taking the time to write the stubs.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. I appreciate editors such as yourself who are here to write an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.110.182 (talk) 07:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I really appreciate you taking the time to say so. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Edgcumbe (died 1489)[edit]

Hi. I don't really want to get involved in the dispute which has been going on concerning your stub creation, but would you please consider adding a claim of notability to your stubs ? That's technically A7able, but as he's got a DNB entry, there's presumably plenty of coverage. You really want as a minimum to be creating something the length of Buluggin ibn Muhammad - just two sentences detailing why the subject is a suitable candidate for an article. Thanks. Claritas § 23:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't an article that's been created recently, and I think enough's been said (of both opinions) on whether a sub-stub is better than nothing. He is notable as a courtier and politician, as mentioned in the article. More will be added over time. Boleyn (talk) 05:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now expanded this stub using ODNB. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		The Purple Star
		For being a great long-term contributor who had to deal with a really lousy block and all that unnecessary ANI drama. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Boleyn (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew foster[edit]

Hi, would you be willing to consider WP:Ignore all rules in the case of "Sir Andrew Foster" since:

Person is clearly notable (try google "Sir Andrew Foster")
- but no article exists yet, but links to name do, so not mentioning him may confuse.. Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I should have been clearer on how it didn't meet the guidelines. External links and references don't belong on disambiguation pages. A redlink which has other links to it meets mos:dabrl and is a valid addition. I see an article's now created. Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Sean White (disambiguation)[edit]

I have nominated Sean White (disambiguation), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean White (disambiguation). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've commented on it. Boleyn2 (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Grey (MP)[edit]

Hi Boleyn

The stub you created on John Grey (MP) contained {{UK-MP-stub}}, which is explicitly for members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Since the Parliament of the United Kingdom was created in 1801, this is wrong; he was a member of the Parliament of Great Britain.

Since you established that he was an MP, it would have been helpful if you had tried to place him in a more specific category than Category:British politicians, in this case Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for English constituencies. You can find appropriate categories by looking at similar articles. Those other articles are not hard to find: there is a list of other MPs for Bridgnorth at Bridgnorth (UK Parliament constituency) (to which you linked), and his successor Lord Pigot has long been in that category.

Also, it was wrong to say that he was elected on 2 April 1754; as noted at British general election, 1754, the 1754 election didn't start until 13 April. If you check Leigh Rayment's lists, you'll find the Bridgnorth MPs listed at http://www.leighrayment.com/commons/Bcommons5.htm ... where it says that he was elected on 16 April.

I added some other data to the article from printed sources I have, but all the points above are in sources available to you. Please could you try to check some of these things when creating a stub article to add to your list? Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Hay (politician)[edit]

I have just been tidying up the sub-stub article George Hay (politician), which you created in June and fixed an ambiguous link today.

I have added categories and references, but note a few points:

He was not an ecclesiastical dean; the post of Dean of Arches is that of a judge in an ecclesiastical court, not of a member of the christian clergy as described at dean (Christianity). The article Dean of Arches, to which you linked, explains the nature of the title. It would have been a good idea to check it before disambiguating.
You wrote that he was elected for Stockbridge in In 1757, at the request of Pitt the Elder. Rayment & Stooks Smith both confirm that he was elected, but do you have a source for this assertion that it was at the request of Pitt the Elder?
He was not a Member of Parliament (MP) for Oxford University. See the list of MPs at Oxford University (UK Parliament constituency)#Parliaments_of_Great_Britain_1707-1800_and_of_the_United_Kingdom_1801-1950; he's not there. Nor is he in Leigh Rayment's list of MPs for Oxford University. Since you linked to Oxford University when you wrote the article, you could have checked the list when you created the article.
He is listed in that article as an unsuccessful candidate for Oxford in 1768, and it appears that you did not distinguish between winning an election and losing it.