User talk:Boleyn/Archive 5
- 1 Bernardino_II_da_Polenta
- 2 Charles Dance (disambiguation)
- 3 Hamish MacDonald (disambiguation)
- 4 More disambiguation problems
- 5 Anne Brandon
- 6 Gordon Bennett!
- 7 Dab page Mark Alexander
- 8 Ben Taylor
- 9 Feinstein
- 10 Bill Glasson
- 11 Mike Dunbar
- 12 John Thynne (disambiguation)
- 13 Nick Young
- 14 Joseph Greenberg (disambiguation)
- 15 Anne Boleyn
- 16 Thanks
- 17 Revert
- 18 Arthur Stratton
- 19 Joe McElderry
- 20 Mary Abbott
- 21 I am very concerned...
- 22 Les Balsiger and Les Balsiger (activist)
- 23 Meinl edit war
- 24 Warning
- 25 re: your recent edits
Hello. I declined the speedy nomination of this article because I felt there was a possibility of notability. However, the content you've added is almost entirely about the subject's family and not the subject themselves. Unfortunately, notability is not inherited by being related to a notable character. I believe the subject was the ruler/lord of something, but I do not know what. If you could improve the article and show that the article has notability by themselves and not as members of their family, I'd appreciate it. If not, I'll AfD the article in a few days. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Nevermind, thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Charles Dance (disambiguation)
Hamish MacDonald (disambiguation)
Hi there, thanks for letting me know of your recent deletion of this disambiguation page.
There is actually a third biography page in draft (the other Hamish MacDonald, indie press author whose name was linked but whose article wasn't there yet), this is why I'd set up a disambiguation page in the first place. Is there any chance you could undo the deletion please? or alternatively advise a more appropriate approach to these overlapping names if a disambiguation page is genuinely not the best approach?
Thanks for your message. When an article is created, either recreate the dab or let me know and I'll do it. At the moment there doesn't seem to be any mention even on WP of the author, so there is no need to mention him on a disambiguation page, which is just a navigational tool to help users find articles on a person. If there's no article/significant mention in an article (see MOS:DABRL for when a redlink is a valid addition) then it's best for the user that they draw a blank straightaway, rather than clicking on a bluelink such as indie press, expecting information on the author. It'll only take 2 seconds to recreate when/if the article is created and if the author is notable enough, so please let me know when this happens if you want me to recreate it. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. The author was mentioned and referenced in the original Hamish MacDonald article where three individuals were being conflated, when I researched the three individuals in the process of untangling that article I thought that it probably was worth putting up a page on each... I just got two done and was then sidelined by other things.
- I've now put up the initial draft at Hamish_MacDonald_(author) so that (hopefully) it can grow as an article in its own right. I'd be much obliged if you could now restore the disambiguation page. Thanks! Splateagle (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I'm puzzled by the notability tag you've placed on the third article though. I've already in the early draft listed several sources and external references. How is this article more suited to be tagged as of questionable notability than the other two? I'd really appreciate some input on what you feel should be improved upon in notability terms? And why this article out of the three merited tagging? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splateagle (talk • contribs) 09:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals contains the guidelines for the notability of authors and publishers. I don't feel he clearly meets this criteria, especially as he is self-published, but neither did I feel that it deserved to be tagged for deletion. As for the other articles on people of similar names, I'm afraid I haven't read them. I think you've done all you can to write a good article on this author, but he doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines. Boleyn3 (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree, but thanks for explaining your motivation. Being self-published is neither here nor there really I would argue that his work on promoting micro-press places him firmly in item 2 of the guidelines you linked to. I'll continue expanding on the article. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splateagle (talk • contribs) 14:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
More disambiguation problems
I have just undone yet another problem caused by your removal of disambiguation pages.
Most of it can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Jonathan+Pim but here's a summary:
Tryde (talk · contribs) created a disambiguation page for two notable Dubliners called Jonathan Pim. At the time, only one of the two articles existed, but the dab page as it existed then clearly marked both of them as notables (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Pim_(disambiguation)&oldid=168305327 , subsequently moved by you to Jonathan Pim (disambiguation) with the edit summary "clear primary".
That "clear primary" refers to Jonathan Pim (1858–1949), which after you moved the dab page was moved to the primary topic. At the time it was the only of the two articles actually existing, but I am surprised that you chose as a primary topic an unelected man who served for one year as Attoney-General over someone who served for 13 years as a Member of Parliament for the capital city.
It seems to me that you just stuck the "clear primary" label" on the article which actually existed. That set in train a series of edits by Fuhghettaboutit (talk · contribs), which resulted in the removal of any trace of the disambiguation. I spotted a misplaced link when editing related articles, and it has just taken me 15 minutes to unravel it all.
I note that in response to my earlier complaint you said that you "feel attacked", and I'm sorry about that ... but even if my tone is coming across wrong, we have a problem here, in that yor work is starting to look to me like an attack on the efforts of editors who are putting a lot of time into disambiguating ambiguous topics. I haven't checked all of your edits, but so far I have encountered damage caused by your work on at least four disambiguation pages. I am beginning to think that I need to do a wider check of your edit history to see what other damage has been done.
Please can you stop just removing dab pages? It's hard enough to disambiguate articles in the first place, but I really hate wasting my time by redoing work which has already been done -- recreating the dab pages and fixing all the links (including cross-checking back to primary sources). I understand that the existence of some dab pages seems to offend your sense of neatness, but they are there for a reason, and you have yet to demonstrate any harm done by them.
I am aware that you are trying to follow guidelines, but guidelines are not a stick ... and they shouldn't be used to damage the encyclopedia, as happened in your edits to Jonathan Pim.
Finally, please can you not just archive this thread immediately, like you did with the last issues I raised? (archived only 16 hours after you replied to my comment). We clearly disagree, and I want to discuss this with you and try to reach a consensus, but discussion can't happen if you just archive things immediately. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
PS I just checked in again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Wingfield (disambiguation), to find that several other relevant articles existed which were added to the dab page. Why did you not do check for those other articles before tagging the dab page for speedy, then prod, then AFD? This is similar to the problem with the two Jonathan Pims, and it really does seem that you are set on deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
In my last message, I politely asked you not to contact me on this issue again, as I feel this is becoming harassment. I will not be responding to you on a case-by-case basis anymore because you already seem to have made up your mind. I would appreciate it if you heeded my polite request and just commented - without personal attacks - on any AfD. Boleyn3 (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- If you want someone to read a message, it's best not to archive it before someone has read it. Skim-reading the diff, I hadn't spotted the don't-contact-me-again message.
- However, I don't see how WP:HARASSMENT is relevant to asking someone to discuss a matter on which there is disagreement. Yes, I have made up my mind on the basis of what I know so far, and so have you. That's why I was trying to open up a dialogue to see if we can resolve the disagreement.
- If you still insist that you don't want to discuss this disagreement, I won't use my time writing lengthy explanations here to try to explain why I disagree with you, seeking your explanation of your understanding. However, since I have identified an unresolved problem I will monitor your edits, and since you don't want to discuss them I will just have to revert any further problematic ones with an edit summary noting your refusal to discuss. This isn't the way that wikipedia is supposed to work, but unless you discuss disagreements it's the best I can do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
This is just a courtesy notice to advise you that I have replied on my talk page to a comment by another editor which relates to you, and you may wish to comment. See User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Totally_agree_about_User:Boleyn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- For the third time, please do not continue to send me messages. Boleyn2 (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's not a very collaborative response to a polite notification of a discussion which refers to you. Per the policy WP:CONSENSUS, "When editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, the process of reaching consensus is furthered on the relevant talk pages". It's a pity that you seem reluctant to engage in that consensus-building process of discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Boleyn, I just created a new article on this person, who I think will interest you: Anne Brandon. If you find the time, could you please help me edit the article as you have more books on the Tudor period than I do, which can be referenced. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- I just finished another article on her sister, Mary Brandon, Baroness Monteagle. The Holbein picture of her is lovely, don't you think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your edit, I understand your point, but I don't wholey (or however one spells it) agree with you.
My problem is, I can't think of another way to convey the information.
"Gordon Bennett!" is a significant part of the English language; have you any suggestions how to incorporate this aspect of usage into the page?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I completely understand your point. However, there was no mention of the term on the bluelinked article, and I don't think it would make sense to include it. There is a link at the top of the dab to its Wiktionary entry, which of course discusses the phrase. It is definitely something people would look for, but I think we need to stick to WP:DICT and keep definitions in Wiktionary rather than here. However, someone else may have another solution, although I really can't think of any legitimate way to include it directly on the dab. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Dab page Mark Alexander
I'm not following why you created a "See also" section in the Dab page Mark Alexander. I see that you are quite experienced with Dab pages, so I'm hesitant to make a change, in case there is a good reason. I've read Wikipedia:Disambiguation (possibly too cursory a read), but I didn't see that style listed.
I can understand having two sections, one for Mark and another for Marc. I can understand a See Also as was done in Rice (disambiguation), but I'm not following why the See Also was done this way for Mark Alexander.
As an important aside, I came to this page because someone named Marc Alexander posted a question to the help page. I don't think that issue will go anywhere, but while looking at the dab page, I note that the original editor of Mark Alexander (keyboardist) removed the article from the Dab page. I'm planning to restore it, unless I hear why it was removed. I only mention this because you have edited the Dab page, and may have some insight into what happened and why.--SPhilbrickT 18:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. It is normal to list those with the exact name of the dab in the main section, with those of a similar name in the see also. If 'Marc Alexander' redirected to the dab, then it would probably be in the main body. As for the keyboardist, I can see no good reason why this was removed, so I've re-added it. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the MOS:DAB fix.
Thanx for the pick-up -- David is the anglicized version of Dovid, much as Elijah is to Eliyahu. Wikipedia may have policies, but I think names should be based on how the individual calls themselves (like Madonna, even though she has a last name). In the end, it all seems so silly because of the redirect potential of an online encyclopedia. Have a good night! DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 01:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I see that as a more experienced dab cleanup editor than me, you've followed up some of my attempts and tidied up some aspects--thanks! :) I have learned from this. I've just worked on Mike Dunbar but I had to remove two entries whose redlinks had no other links, and therefore the result is a redirect to a redlink (which does have other links). This doesn't seem to be an adequate end result... could you take a look? Perhaps a stub should be created for the one remaining article in such circumstances. Interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks. PL290 (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, for the moment I've put it as a dad with one entry and re-tagged for clean-up, while I see if anyone else has some good ideas. It's a tough one - it should probably redirect to the incoming link which gives most information about him, but as there are several incoming links, it's hard to judge. I'll keep an eye on it and see what others think. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I imagine it isn't your fault if a policy on such pages has changed, but the older format seems to me more straightforward and more useful. I can't help wondering, in a case like this, how do you decide which is the primary subject? Is it done subjectively, or is there some objective method? Moonraker2 (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. The steward is currently on the primary page, as he is at John Thynne with no title or disambiguator. This of course doesn't mean it's correctly positioned, but it seems to be here. The steward has more than twice as many page views. He also has about six times as many Google hits. Those are the main ways to judge, although they're not definitive. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting. I suppose both page views and Google hits are more a measure of public interest than of objective importance – and in the first case a snapshot measure which could easily be distorted by some recent news story – but at least it's not completely subjective. Moonraker2 (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
In reference to your reversion of my edit at the above DAB page, i would point you to the very MOS:DABRL you referenced. There it says, A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link; if you look at List of male performers in gay porn films there is, indeed, that same red link. You could have found that by using "What links here", as MOS:DABRL suggests. Might i suggest you revert yourself? Cheers, LindsayHi 17:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding, another message was sent shortly after yours and so I missed this. I did go to 'What links here' and saw that the actor was not redlinked in any articles, just on a list page, therefore I removed it. Best wishes, Boleyn2 (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Joseph Greenberg (disambiguation)
Hi Boleyn. Somebody has removed the Holbein portrait of Anne from the article. There's been a spate of vandalism to it recently. I tried to fix the image to no avail. Could you please take a look at it? Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your Douglas Wilson edit and I sincerely hope you do not take offense. You have no doubt contributed much more than I have, and are probably a much more refined editor. I believe, though, that the organization established by the categories in the aforementioned article will provide a much more suitable framework for further expansion than a freeform list. I would welcome your thoughts. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Boleyn. Thank you for the info on disambiguation. I had forgotten to add this article to my watchlist, and therefore had lost track of it a little (I am still without a clue as to whether the gentleman is still alive or not, someone added "living persons" cat. and tag  but couldn't find any concrete info across the net) This link here provides descendancy information which may become useful once the above question is clarified. . Regards. Cretanforever (talk) 07:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The AfD for Joe McElderry which you participared in closed as Redirect to List_of_The_X_Factor_finalists_(UK_series_6). There is a proposal now at Talk:List_of_The_X_Factor_finalists_(UK_series_6)#Joe_McElderry_2 to restore an independent article and your opinion would be welcome there. I42 (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Please check the name. If you search Mary Abbott you'll find John Abbott redirected from Mary Abbott. Abbott disambiguation would be helpful rather then John Abbott. Thank you for your attention. (Salmon1 (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC))
I added redirect to Mary Abbott as well as to John Abbott. Please correct if you find a better way to get to Marry Abbott (artists) using: Search. Thank you. (Salmon1 (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC))
I am very concerned...
Hello, Boleyn. 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. Thank you.
I was very concerned with the pattern of edits I described here. I am not suggesting bad faith, but I am very concerned that your dab initiatives can be interpreted as giving the appearance of bad faith.
- I wrote to User:Orderinchaos about his or her deletion of Susan Manning (disambiguation). I wrote, in part: For the record I do not believe, and didn't mean anyone to read into my comments, that I suspected the other contributor had set out to abuse policy. What I remain concerned has happened is that a long term quality control volunteer, who is doing a task that other quality control volunteers consider important, has innocently slipped into a pattern of editing that lapses from what is best for the project over-all. We are all supposed to be accountable for what we do here, and what we say. With circumscribed exceptions at the highest level, our decision-making is supposed to be made in an open and transparent manner. I remain concerned that the other contributor's use of multiple userids is not open and transparent, but rather is opaque and obfuscates their accountability.
- I saw, in your note to User:Orderinchaos, that my comments upset you. Upsetting you was not my intent. In the interest of not further upsetting you I won't write more now. And I am going to assume that the pattern of edits you made that disturbed me was not intended to upset me. Maybe the note I see you referred to on Talk:Susan Manning (disambiguation) addresses the concerns I raised there. I am going to ask the administrator who deleted the talk page to email me its contents. Geo Swan (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
3RR?! I count one. I'm really confused. Please read the discussion and the Afd. I don't like the arrangement of this pretty-much-single dab page either but it was vetted by Wikipedia's legal counsel at the time per private e-mail (today it would be OTRS). Please assume good faith--I've never been accused of 3RR before. Pretty shocking to wake up to. More later, I've got to run now. Katr67 (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm very sorry about that, my error. I have read the discussion and the strange AfD, but the entry nonetheless does not meet MOS:DABRL and is not a valid entry. If/when it becomes one, it can be readded. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your apology. I'm not entirely sure that "does not meet WP:DABRL" trumps "saving Wikipedia from legal repercussions", however. I won't revert again (a second time) but I'm going to see if the parties involved are around and I may reopen the Afd. I didn't agree that there should be a dab page at that time, but I stand by community consensus and the consensus was to keep the dab page. I'm not sure you should unilaterally reverse that decision. This is actually a very serious matter beyond "it doesn't follow the rules". I'll let you know what we decide. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Meinl edit war
That was banned User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg. I have blocked his newest ban-evading sock Richard Egger. I am surprised that he never gives up. We used to have a specialized cleanup project to deal with his articles at Wikipedia:SU; perhaps we need to restart that (but it has become harder since he started account hopping like crazy). — Kusma talk 16:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Boleyn. I removed your 3RR report from WP:AN3 due to a formatting issue which I could not fix. Per the above, I assume the problem is already addressed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not just from one IP address... see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sheynhertz-Unbayg. Happy editing, — Kusma talk 20:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
This was a difficulat dab to clean-up, but you'll find JHunterJ is a very experienced editor, and his/her version is correct per MOS:DAB. If there are reasons you object to parts of it, please discuss it on the dab's Talk page, rather than sending warnings to editors. Boleyn2 (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- JHunterJ made up a definition of when to include red links. If you are all blind I can't help you. MOS:DABRL has nothing like his requirements. I cannot judge whether he is experienced. If he is, then this label has no value here. He cannot correctly read MOS:DABRL. TrueColour (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Please don't start being insulting, including calling people blind and questioning JHunterJ's ability to read English. You've only been on here two months, so it's not surprising that you have misunderstood MOS:DABRL, but re-read it - it is pretty clear. Boleyn2 (talk) 07:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
re: your recent edits
Hi! May I ask why you deleted James Andrew Davis, but did not delete James Davis (Australian politician) and Jim Davis (mayor) from here?
Invest in knowledge (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)