User talk:Boleyn/Archive 22

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

Paul DeMaine[edit]

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

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

Unnecessary boldface[edit]

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

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

AfD Closer[edit]

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 Regrading AfD closers where you have withdrawn your nomination you should wait for the closer to remove the AfD template rather then doing it yourself with Steve Blame which I closed it didn't really matter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

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

Talkback[edit]

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

Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 19:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iowa Film Critics Awards 2003[edit]

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

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

Yes check.svg Done. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle[edit]

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibrahim Electric[edit]

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

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

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

Good to see...[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Your recent AfD blitz[edit]

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

Following your nomination for AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Hogg I remind you that nominators are expected to carry out WP:Before before nominating an article for AfD. Provision exists to revoke the editing privileges of editors who show themselves to be unable to edit Wikipedia competently. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC).
Yes, I would also support this call for caution. You have made at least two absolute blunders, and several more very poor nominations. StAnselm (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I also see from these AfD stats that ten of your recent nominations have already been closed as speedy keep. It's great that you've been prepared to withdraw these nominations and facilitate the early closure, but it appears you are simply not doing the work required by WP:BEFORE. StAnselm (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

The withdrawal of the nominator is the number 1 reason to have a speedy keep - see Wikipedia:Speedy keep. But Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Hogg, mentioned above, was closed before you withdrew. You are nominating articles for deletion based on a lack of notability - that means more than checking the article, it means at the very least a simple Google search. You have repeatedly missed truckloads of Google Scholar citations, and this wastes people's time. StAnselm (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
D1 of WP:BEFORE says The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform. It certainly looks to me that you have failed to do this. StAnselm (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Leonello Picco[edit]

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

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

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

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

Damir Nikšić[edit]

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

Using PROD?[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


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

Lady Margaret Butler[edit]

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

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

James Watson (disambiguation)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, sorry about that. Because there was no edit summary, I thought you were deleting it because it was a redirect. {db-move} is your best bet if it's the clear primary. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)As there are so many other uses of "James Watson", I don't think this could be called a non-controversial move, so db-move would be inappropriate. If you think that the DNA man is the primary topic for the name, you should use Requested Move to propose a move of James Watson to James Watson (disambiguation), so it can be seen and discussed by other editors. The incoming links to the dab page at present (none of which should exist, of course) seem to be intended for a mix of DNA-man and others.
There's another question: is the DNA man best known as "James D. Watson", or just as "James Watson"? There might be an argument for moving his page to plain James Watson (if (a) he is the primary usage for the name and (b) the plain name without "D" is the name by which he is best known). To do this would need a multiple move request.
I've also just discovered {{RMassist}}, which is apparently preferred over {{db-move}} (news to me). It's for use in purely "technical moves" (eg moving something to a title currently occupied by a redirect with a history), totally uncontroversial (ie NOT for James Watson!) See Wikipedia:RM#Requesting_technical_moves. One advantage over {{db-move}} is that not all admins who do the requested delete then follow it up with the page move, while using the RMassist route it gets done every time. PamD 09:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the stalk! I appreciate the guiding hand. I've listed it as a requested move — see Talk:James Watson. (I didn't use RMassist, since you seemed to think this is a non-uncontroversial move. I tend to think it's pretty clear-cut, but that's why we have consensus, isn't it?) The page title question is an interesting one. The Google stats I posted there would certainly seem to support your idea — that "James Watson" would be a better title than "James D. Watson."
Thanks also to User:Boleyn for the info. Woodshed (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawing AfD nominations[edit]

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

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

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

I'm inclined to think WP:IAR would be okay here if it means undoing your own stuff. But withdrawing the nom has the same effect in the end. Anyway, I've reformatted quite a few of your NACs and thought you should know. No real issue, just need to be careful to include the whole AFD in those closure templates. All good! Cheers, Stalwart111 10:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems quite reasonable to close your own AfDs if no-one has supported them, but as you can see in what I've said at the AfD talk page there seems a lot of fuzziness around the whole area and gaps in the documentation. I hope we can get it clarified. I think perhaps the absolute statement about not closing your own nominations needs to be given this exception, but we also need a guide as to how to withdraw an AfD. PamD 11:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Have supported your call for clarity/guidance. Very worthwhile, in my opinion. Stalwart111 11:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

reply to a comment[edit]

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

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

  • Now that I've found this post, what puzzles me is why two editors showed up at Rah Crawford and each confounded the discussion.  Is this something you requested?  I haven't had time to read your post here, this could take hours to analyze, and I have a RL to attend to.  Unscintillating (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
You may not have found time to read Boleyn's post here, but as one of her friendly (usually!) talk-page stalkers I read it, was curious to see what it was about, noted that she was unhappy her post had been deleted, and decided it was better all round to revert your removal of the discussion at the AfD. I imagine the other editor may have a similar tale. It's how talk pages work. It is not "something [Boleyn] requested", beyond her statement above: there is no conspiracy. And now I've got a lot of off-wiki stuff to do today so will probably not reply further. PamD 10:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Our guideline says to comment on edits, not editors.  When I ask for clarification or evidence, I don't need assurance that I need neither.  I hope you don't think that because I took down a speedy keep !vote in response to an adversarial post, that this is a good tactic to repeat.  What continues to be missing IMO is a demonstration on your part that you are working on the notability questions you have raised for others to work on.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

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

StarM 00:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

refactored discussion[edit]

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

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

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

Edit tests on Rachel Brooksby[edit]

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

(talk page stalker)The above message is rubbish, and I've reported it on the bot's talkpage, but I agree with the bot that the template you added is a bit problematic. I've never seen that template used on a page, only in discussions at AfD, and I'm not sure it's appropriate on a public encyclopedia page. In this case the fact that an editor's only 3 edits were to start this article 6 years ago, when it's since been expanded by various other people, seems pretty irrelevant, surely? Something to mention in an AfD if you want, but not for the article page itself. PamD 15:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
She certainly doesn't really seem to be notable, though has had an interesting and varied career! PamD 15:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

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

WP:HIGHSCHOOL[edit]

WP:HIGHSCHOOL is an essay, not a guideline. Please read the disclaimer:

-- Mesconsing (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)