User talk:Boleyn/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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)

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)

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 NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
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)

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)

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 for a quite different perspective on things. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I really appreciate the messages. I've started doing some basic editing again, although I'm not creating articles at the moment because I know how much scrutiny they'll probably be exposed to, and I don't like the idea of worrying about it each time I create something. Thanks again, Boleyn (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear from you! I hope you don't mind but I structured your user page. I also added a link to Texts to be transferred from Wikisource. The articles you can copy and start the articles for. If you start them like Andrew Anderson (draughts) with the DNB links and categories this would be a great help and also add the link to the wikipedia article e.g where is says wikipedia here.. There are 20,000 articles waiting to be started!! I need your help!! Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Charles and I were discussing a possible new wiki project or sub project for DNB articles. What we need is greater coordination and contributors, people like your self interested in such older, traditional material. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

New disambig pages[edit]

Howdy. I see you've been adjusted some of the new disambig pages I've created over the last few days. To clarify the purpose of the pages, I'm working through a list of red linked names containing abbreviated middle names (ie Robert A. Campbell) searching for potential matches in our pool of existing articles (ie Robert Adam Campbell). Often when a suitable candidate doesn't exist it's because the subject of the abbreviated link doesn't meet notability guidelines; the abbreviated name can be de-linked. Sometimes however I'm finding potentially notable subjects for which we do not have articles - Robert A. Campbell's a good example.

The new disambig pages are there to capture the knowledge that more than one similarly named but distinct and potnentially notable people exist, even if we only have an article on one of them at the moment. Some of the changes you've made obscure this fact - for example clicking on Thomas D. Anderson in United States District Court for the District of Vermont now takes you to Thomas David Anderson - the wrong Thomas D. Anderson.

I'm quite aware that what I'm producing is sub-optimal and welcome corrections and suggestions, but would contend that they're a useful stepping stone to a more elegant, permanent solution. - TB (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I'd gone through most of the articles and corrected them because I saw that the new dabs had incoming links but I must have missed some. The problem that can emerge from having a dab for Thomas Anderson and then also Thomas D. Anderson is that they either duplicate the information or people end up at one and miss what they're actually looking for. That's why we would usually stick to dabbing by personal name (first name + surname) only. The instances you highlighted did need disambiguation. When the dab only has two entries, see MOS:DAB#Disambiguation pages with only two entries, hatnotes are usually preferred. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've another few thousand such red links to go through, so probably 4-500 more new dabs to come. I've been assured elsewhere that hatnotes to missing articles are unwelcome, so will instead add a 'see also' to personal-name dab pages (where they exist) instead. Hopefully this will aid any further processing required. - TB (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you're doing great work. Boleyn (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Boleyn, on a related note, I noticed that you've made some edits[1][2][3][4][5] with the summary "rem per MOS:DABRL". The guideline recommends unlinking the entry word, not removing the entry. Melchoir (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

On dabs, entries should always have a blue link, preferably to the article and if not then to an article which have a worthwhile mention of the entry, and where the entry is redlinked. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly reasonable, but MOS:DABRL doesn't actually say to remove entries in the absence of such a link. If that's the best practice, then by all means, please say so in the guideline! Then a "rem per MOS:DABRL" edit summary would be a lot clearer. Melchoir (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Henry Hervey Baber[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Henry Hervey Baber requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Gobbleswoggler (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This was literally one minute old - it is now a well-developed article. Boleyn (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Fédorov and its many variations[edit]

Hi there. I think some disambiguation needs to happen here, but I'm not sure what the best approach is. One problem is the different spelling of the last name, which apparently is pronounced the same. Anyway, here are the articles involved. Also some names use the diacritical mark and others don't. Vladimir Fédorov, Vladimir Fedorov, Vladimir Grigoryevich Fyodorov, Vladimir Fyodorov (footballer). There may be more red linked ones which I didn't check for. Thanks for any help you can give in advance. Cheers.4meter4 (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A couple of comments: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) indicates that the patronymic Grigoryevich should be omitted. And I would approve of Fyodorov as the romanization, since it is correct phonetics. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd created it at Vladimir Fedorov (disambiguation) but will look into moving it to the correct phonetics. Boleyn (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Boleyn. That is much better.4meter4 (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi great work on the DNB but can you not iunclude the word Attribution in the references. Thanks. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 16:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Boleyn (talk) 09:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT conflict[edit]

Hi, you added two different DEFAULTSORTs on John Fawcett Gordon. Do you know which one is correct? Without any specific knowledge about this person, I'd say that "Gordon, John Fawcett" is correct, but maybe you have information that Fawcett is part of his surname rather than a middle name? MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 18:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know if it's a double-barrelled surname or his middle name. Thanks for looking into it, Boleyn (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Arthur Ingram[edit]

RlevseTalk 00:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Ingram[edit]

Hi, nice piece on Ingram. I'd come across him before in Yorkshire, and I was delighted to see him in DYK. MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, although other editors, including yourself and especially Dr Blofeld deserve the praise for it, I just created it as a stub. It is looking great now. Thanks again, Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, I agree with Dr Blofeld's remarks above concerning the stubs. I have bumped up against Ingram several times in Yorkshire records but wouldn't have taken the time to create an entry for him. But when I saw there was an existing entry, I was happy to add a little bit to it. In any case, thanks for creating it and take care. MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


All MPs are of course individually notable, and articles are appropriate. But if you add party and position, please add a reference. As you know, there are excellent references available. Why give an opening to people taking a pointy position? DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You're probably not aware, but this has been discussed in great detail and I've been going back adding references to every article I've created. Unfortunately, many of them have just been deleted without me being informed, so I had no opportunity to improve those. Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I remember prior related discussions, but this seems blatantly inappropriate. Please point me to the most relevant discussion. I'm prepared to take this to AN/I again, as I think it utterly outrageous. As for the deleted articles, I could of course revert her, but it would be so much simpler just to make them again. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I found the prior discussion on AN /I. I am still very likely to take this one there again. I'll alert you when I do. DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it's been to AN/I twice (you'll find details of the other one in my Talk page, the last archive, I think). About twelve seem to have been nominated for speedy deletion and then deleted by BHG this evening - I don't know if she's stopped. Any help or advice that you can offer I'd be grateful for. Boleyn (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, it has continued, at least 15 now. Boleyn (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Any reason why you created them without a reference? You should have known BHG would be hot on your heels if you didn't reference them. BHG will not speedy delete articles if you provide a reference first time, its plain and simple really. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 16:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

These were all created quite a while ago, before all the fuss about them and I didn't realise they had to be referenced in the first instance. Several of the articles deleted do seem to have had references though, the reason for deletion is that they are so short. Boleyn (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

They can of course be re-created if they contain some content over and above what's in the list of MPs for that constituency, and they are referenced. After some concerns that A10 may not be applicable to articles six to ten weeks old (seems recent to me, but some editors disagree), any further such sub-stubs I encounter have either been redirected to the constituency article, or (in a few cases) expanded.
If Boleyn is going to expand articles, it would be much better not to do so in the way she did in this edit, where she listed Edwards-Vaughan as having been MP for [[Wells (UK Parliament constituency)|Glamorganshire and Wells]], even tho "Glamorganshire and Wells" is a non-existent constituency ... and despite link pointing to Wells, the bare URL ref which followed it referred to Glamorgan. That's just one of many such examples of Boleyn missing references and misleading readers -- in this case by conflating two separate periods of someone's career, but in others with outright falsehoods. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Boleyn I'm going to start creating them, hopefully BHG will restore the remainder and allow you to expand them and source them. I've begun with George Horsey, you have ODNB please expand. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 18:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

PLease expand and ref User:Dr. Blofeld/Sir William Russell, 1st Baronet, of Wytley User:Dr. Blofeld/Thomas Stanley (1749–1816)

and then restore. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 19:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've expanded them with the sources I have, do you think they're safe to restore yet? Boleyn (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You're doing wonderful work now Boleyn. Yes Thomas Stanley should be safe once we find some categories and a source to support MP term. I'm sorry that it is having to be done this way. You did say though that you intended coming back to source/expand them so it shouldn't take any extra time. I'll gladly help you where I can, I wish I had ODNB. I'm afraid I've upset Charles as he was under the impression I was asking him to do all the work. Actually I was just asking him to restore them gradually to workspace to avoid you or me having to restart the original text and just make it easy to reference on top of what you started. This way you don't have to type out the original text/categories. I'm afraid he misunderstood me. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 20:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Stanley (1749–1816) needs a source. I've restored a few more. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 21:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have caused you both such trouble. I have read your conversation at BHG's page, and just wanted to reiterate that I haven't been creating unreferenced stubs in the six weeks or so since this all blew up. I've left my disambiguation work and my watchlist for the first time in two years, and have concentrated on improving the articles I'd already created and adding from the DNB to make some of this up to you and Charles. I learnt a lot from this, but I haven't even vaguely enjoyed editing with this all going on, and I had hoped that with BHG taking a wikibreak, I'd have them all sorted by her return, but obviously things changed. Hopefully when this latest episode is over, I can improve the articles and then have a very long wikibreak as this is really affecting me. I appreciate your support with these articles. Boleyn (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I see, she deleted articles you'd created a long time ago. I am very glad as I thought these were new stubs. Xeno if you are watching this I propose that that no article of Boleyn's is ever deleted in this way again. I strongly recommend if boleyn's stubs about historical politicians are going to get deleted and be picked on in this way that all unsourced articles go in a User:Boleyn/Unsourced page. This way i will help go through and ensure they are sourced. I think it is important that we have these articles and also that Boleyn feels happy editing as I believe overall she is a great addition to the site and needed some help. I sincerely hope that the deletion of articles will not occur again given that there is a group of editors willing to sort out any outstanding ones. I stand by my belief that every editor should feel free to add or develop content whenever they wish and should not fele pressurized to do something or victimized. If you see it from Boleyn's perspective she has put up with an awful lot of whinging directed at her and some things which to the casual eye seem nasty. I believe that every active contributor deserves to be treated with respect andin good faith and if they are causing problems that they be kindly asked to improve them rather than going down the exteme route and deleting their articles and forcing them away. BHG has a point about unreferenced stubs/original research and the odd category, but I do not see it has the huge problem as is being depcted and with a bit of collaboration I think it is easily solved. providiong that our words are heeded and that you create new stubs within the guidelines sources/categories. Boleyn there are some people who are very fond of you , I do hope that we can overcome this. I will very much appreciate it if you activiated your email as I have a recommendation to you to get over this. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 21:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr. B, Boleyn has been asked repeatedly, over many weeks, to improve articles by referencing facts and not creating sub-stubs which say nothing more than the list articles. She has been asked nicely on plenty of occasions, including by me, and she has been offered bucketloads of help (including from me) ... but although the flow of new sub-stubs has slowed, it has not stopped, despite repeated comments from lots others pointing out the sheer uselessness to readers and editors of that sort of copy-pasted content. Boleyn claims to have been referencing the articles, but several cases the refs supplied do not support the facts asserted, she continues to miscategorise large numbers of articles, and in many many cases the "expansion" consists solely of adding a date of birth or age at death. That sort of micro-expansion is a piece of de minimis formalism designed to allow her to claim that the sub-stub contains one factoid more than in the list article ... even tho the sub-stub lacks any of the meta information contained in the constituency article, such as links to elections or successor(s) and predecessor(s) (which other similar stubs produce through succession boxes). If Boleyn was actually trying to improve the articles to the level where they would offer a benefit to the reader, then the articles would not be facing either deletion or redirection.
I'm glad to see that you are keen to help Boleyn; after putting a lot of effort into trying to help Boleyn identify problems and ways of improving her work, I gave up offering help, because it was either ignored or denounced by her as "bullying". However, you will be doing her no favours if you simply pander to her repeated claims that identifying recurring problems is victimisation, rather than helping her fix the problems by focusing on developing pages which actually add benefit to the reader. I have nothing against Boleyn personally, but I and several other editors do find it very sad that she is defending every last drop of this flood of articles which amount to nothing more than useless dead ends for the reader. She would do much better to learn how to produce worthwhile stubs, and then take her time expanding some of the previous flood up to a decent level, or to accept its deletion and start producing new, worthwhile content. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Boleyn I need you to activate your email address. Once that is done please contact me "Email this user" and just post "Hi" or something. Then I will respond to you off wiki as I have something very important to propose to you. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 22:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Boleyn: I join BHG in asking to at least spend some time verifying the information - bits like "1554 to 1555, during the reign of Henry VIII" [6] give away unnecessary haste in creating these stubs. East of Borschov 05:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Mistakes in articles are certainly regrettable. As are personal attacks: the difference being, as we all know, that personal relations on the site are damaged by personalisation of issues with content in a way that cannot be fixed up by a few edits. The tone of BHG's comments above, in edit summaries, and in the PROD nomination below for Richard Edgcumbe (politician) (which I have just edited on the article itself) is overblown and unhelpful. I actually agree with that PROD nomination: it looks better to delete that article as flawed and start again, since sorting out the Richard Edgcumbe appears to be a lengthy business from a standing start. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Robert Williams (1767–1847)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Robert Williams (1767–1847) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced splat-paste from the dab page Robert Williams, adds precisely nothing to wikipedia. Subject is probably notable per WP:POLITICIAN if anything is verified, but the existence of this splat-paste is pointless: it doesn't assist navigation, and it doesn't add information

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Richard Edgcumbe (politician)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Richard Edgcumbe (politician) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wholly unreferenced sub-stub created by an editor who acknowledges having had no references to justify the surprising assertion that the same person returned as MP for Liskeard in 1586 was also MP for Newport in 1640, i.e. 54 years later.
Richard Edgcumbe is a disambiguation page, listing several people of the same name. The parliamentary seats listed in this article may have been held by several of them, or by completely difft people, or possibly all to one man with an exceptionally long Parliamentary career as claimed here ... but without refs, this is just an case of "some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information", as denounced by Jimbo in his comment Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information, which has long been cited at WP:V.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

@BHG--see below--perhaps you can do the basic work this time. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
This one may be hopeless, absent good reference material, though. Each article on its own merits is the only way. Deletion discussions should not involve the doings of the creating editor, but should be conducted by due process. The Williams article above is an entirely different case. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

BHG, thank you for letting me know. Thank you also for making it a prod rather than a speedy, as this gives me an opportunity to improve it. It is still short, but fully verified. Boleyn (talk) 07:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for working through the material there. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

John Moore[edit]

@BHG and Boleyn: You will both be glad to know that John Moore (London MP), which was made into a stub article by B. and redirected to the constituency by BHG, turns out to be the John Moore who was earlier Lord Mayor of London, was famous both politically and as founder of a famous school with a Wikipedia article, famous to the extent that political ballads were written about him, and has an article in the DNB. My quick check on G Books found that, and I made a start at what could be a very substantial article. I hope that one or both of you will want to expand it into a GA. Myself, I'm going to rescue some more articles. I wish , B, that you'd do this basic research when you write the article in the first place--it is primarily your responsibility and you can easily find the sources; but, BHG, if she doesn't, I wish you'd do it before you redirect or delete. It's a little much to expect others to make good on what each of you should rightly have done. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect anyone to make good on what I should have done, but I'm very grateful to you and others who have done so. I didn't realise at the time (a couple of months ago) that all new articles needed to be referenced, but this is not the reason for the recent deletions; many of them were referenced, they were deleted for brevity. I will continue to work through the articles I'd created, adding sources and information where I can find them. I'm glad to hear that you've found out so much om John Moore, I will certainly see if I can expand it. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this stalking will ever end, so I'm retiring. I hope nobody feels they have to recreate the deleted articles - they are notable and will be created again in time, although of course it'd be nice if they were there already. Thanks to everyone for their support, but this has been upsetting me for weeks, to the point where I simply cannot go on. Boleyn (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you still feel this way. I don't blame you. You are welcome to return at any time. I wish you were back editing. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 13:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It will be very helpful if you do return, and I'll help you get these done. Please email me--use the email dgoodman at my university address, I'll also be glad to call you if it would help. At Wikipedia,we have the unfortunate situation that whoever is the most aggressive wins, (if they can avoid actually insulting anybody). Don't let them succeed. I would like to think that BHG is stalking the articles, not you; in any case, it can best be dealt with if you remain and edit calmly. DGG ( talk ) 16:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I, too, am sorry to lose you. You've done a good deal of very fine work - even if it has been stubby (which I don't mind in the least, I hasten to add), it's been something to work on. And to learn from; I've learned more than I ever thought I would about the Parliamentary system from helping to work on your articles. I hope very much that you return; your presence here would be most helpful. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please reconsider your Retirement[edit]

Hi Boleyn, I'm sorry to see that you've felt you had to leave WP. I know from our old joint activity at Wikipedia:Suggestions for disambiguation repair that you're the sort of gently-obsessive fixer-up of links etc that WP needs, but I must say I've agreed with BHG about some of the problems with some of your stubs.

Can I make a suggestion? Why not right now just walk away from all the MP and Tudor stubs, add a note to your talk page asking people not to notify you of Speedies, PRODs or even AfDs for them, and find a new area to work in. There's some really useful stuff to be done at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, tidying up after editors who can't be bothered to sort out whether they're linking to the intended page or not. Interesting and useful work which incontrovertibly benefits the encyclopedia. And which, from experience, can lead to interesting tangents tidying up the dab pages involved, adding the links which aren't there, etc etc ... the sort of thing whereby I sit down at WP with my breakfast muesli and suddenly it's become lunchtime.

Perhaps you're so "Retired" now that you won't even read this, but I hope not. Please give it a thought. All the best, PamD (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add my tuppenceworth and join Pamd in support of your disambiguation work. That's much-needed work, and largely uncontroversial ... and like Pam, I hope you'll consider resuming it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Romeland listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Romeland. Since you had some involvement with the Romeland redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)