User talk:Boleyn/Archive 21

Hi Boleyn, I've revised the

Thank you. I have made some minor edits to the page. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Quis separabit? 18:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but no need to apologise - it's more important to have the person added than that the style is right, the style can be easily amended. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ... discospinster _talk 04:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Boleyn: I spotted this and my first instinct was to unspeedy it as a being useful dab and obviously the result of work spent on disentangling similarly-named people. But on looking further, the computer programmer had only one incoming redlink, and that was as the author of a reference, so he seemed unlikely ever to have an article - I unlinked him. The composer's redlinks could then all have been changed to the base name, but it didn't seem worth the effort. I've added him to the dab page at Jeffrey, and made Geoffrey into a redirect there, with a note on the talk page of the redirect. I hope you're happy with this lot. PamD 09:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And left a note at User_talk:Discospinster#Dab_pages. PamD 09:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it, that seems fine. Boleyn (talk) 11:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to merge

Hello, DanTD, and thanks for looking at this page. I've just proposed it be merged to its own section in Freeport dab. It should be merged in a few days if there are no objections. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, Underlinked doesn't work in the old style of Multiple issues, tried here. In order for it to work it has to use the new style in curly brackets shown here. Thanks. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Boleyn (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Matthew Cocks has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnecessary disambiguation, only lists redlinks

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GiantSnowman 17:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Matthew Cocks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Cocks until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. GiantSnowman 17:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully Andrew Fox now points to what you, sensibly, think it should point to. If not please give me a shout on my talkpage. Regards Tonywalton ^Talk 00:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving it. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why you deleted my reference to Anthony Campbell (Welsh physician) on this disambiguation page My reference to the BBC website makes it pretty obvious that he is not the same person as the other Anthony Campbell who is also a physician. I also included his birth date, as per MOS:D. The only reason I can think of is that there were no links to him. Thanks Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and sorry I didn't leave an edit summary. References and external links don't belong on

Hi. What part of the

MOS:DABMENTION do they not meet? The only reason I can think of is that there were no links to the scientist in question; is that correct? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I left a link to the University's article on him for the sole purpose that any reasonable editor would follow it and realise that Professor Anthony Campbell exists and that the disambiguation reference to him was bona fide, relevant and a good addition to Wkipedia. I've just double checked the link I left and it works fine - a direct link to the article on him. To say that my link didn't mention him' is untrue. The whole article is about him:
"Professor Anthony Campbell had the idea of replacing radioactivity in immunoassay and DNA technology by a chemical reaction that makes light - chemiluminescence. This invention has now transformed clinical diagnosis, and is a world leading technology, now used in several 100 million clinical tests per year, world-wide." I would have expected you or another to have deleted the link as soon as you had verified it, as it was obviously a temporary measure. But you also decided to delete the reference to Professor Anthony Campbell. Rushing in to delete people's contributions has a very negative effect on the community and I ask you to think twice in doing so again. In future, please also detail exactly which part of the

MOS:DABMENTION you are using, when doing so. It was my intention to follow up the disambiguation link with an article. I will now leave that to others. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Many thanks for the explanation to my original question "Could you please explain why you deleted my reference to Anthony Campbell". My link was: this one and as you will verify, it is NOT "a link to a WP article on a town." You will find this link on this disambiguation page. Please confirm that my link was to the article on Prof Anthony Campbell (scientist). I have no objection to the "guidelines" and have given you my reasons for including these temp. refs, which were ignored, or wrongly followed to some unknown "town" webpage. Can I now suggest that you undo your deletion, as it is obvious that Campbell merits a listing on the disambiguation page. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 10:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link to a WP article on a town/area in the entry was

A tag has been placed on

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Senator2029 leave me a message 21:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be very careful about nominating pages for speedy deletion within minutes of creation. In this case, this page has two entries which have articles, and one which meets

Hello Boleyn. You've asked for this to be deleted as a G6. I assume that

OK with me. A hatnote may be unnecessary. Some other admin did the G6 and I have since tried to update

Cameron Hall (basketball, born 1957)? When you type 'Cameron Hall' in the WP search box you now see both Cameron Hall (basketball) and Cameron Hall (basketball, born 1957). This might give the searcher the impression that they are two separate people. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for that. The redirect should probably be deleted then, I guess it serves no purpose and could confuse readers. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the tag on Daryl Dixon? Do you have the authority to disallow my original request? Barsoomian (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Barsoomian. The reason I removed it was given in the edit summary. As to whether I have the authority, yes, any user has the authority to remove it. A speedy deletion tag suggests it is 'uncontroversial', so anyone can object. It is only an AfD tag that can't be removed. I have also added 2 entries. You could still take it to AfD (although there would be no chance of it being deleted). Alternatively you could put in a move request saying that you feel the Walking Dead character is the primary. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Now I'd have to waste hours of time to navigate the maze of jargon and bureaucracy to clear this up. The only other "Daryl Dixon" article is an orphan article created by the subject, that probably should have been deleted immediately it was created. Barsoomian (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Barsoomian. You certainly wouldn't have to spend hours moving the page. I added a {notability} tag to the economic writer's article as you were concerned about his notability. If you feel confident it should be deleted, you might consider

Is the argument that Anne Taylor is NOT currently notable, but may become notable? And therefore deserves a red link here? According to Netball and the Olympic Movement, she is someone appointed by a Netball Federation to study Olympic guidelines, which doesn't strike me as notable. Horstvonludwig (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Since an Anne Taylor article is unlikely to be written, I read that as meaning there should not be a red link here for this non-notable person. Of course, as an admitted exclusionist, if the WP guidelines are contradictory, I am always on the side of deletion. Horstvonludwig (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand your point, but those guidelines are about whether her name is made a redlink or left black (with a blue link later in the line), not about whether the entry is added at all (e.g Ann Taylor, librarian, see [x], or [Ann Taylor (librarian)], see [x]). It is a redlink in an article, so somebody has deemed her to meet the guidelines for creating a redlink. I tend to think that if they are already a redlink in an article, then adding a redlink on the dab isn't really 'creating' a redlink to the person, because they are already redlinked on WP, but that's just my interpretation. Either way, I would redlink it unless I'd looked seriously into the person and was sure they weren't notable, and then I'd also remove the redlink in the article which mentions her. She would still be a valid addition to a dab though. Taking it all into account, I agree with MOS:DABMENTION, but if you disagree strongly it may be worth discussing at Wikiproject:Disambiguation. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I take your point. So, my "battle" would be with the author(s) of the

Hopefully no need for battles! :) If you've looked carefully into it and feel the link in the article should be removed, then remove it, or start a discussion on the article's Talk page. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm SarahStierch. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Whittingstall, and have un-reviewed it again. If you've got any questions, please ask me on my talk page. Thanks, SarahStierch

Hello, this was a page that I had created rather than reviewed, and was still under construction. It wouldn't have been OK in its condition when you looked at it. It is now complete. Best wishes and thanks for looking at it and letting me know, Boleyn (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)I was curious about this so followed the link... and am still puzzled.

• Can you see any point in the orphan redirect at
  Whittingstall's? Yes, the possessive adjective (or whatever it is, grammatically) is present in that paragraph, but that's not a justification for a link. (On the other hand I added the chap in that para to the dab page at Fearnley-Whittingstall, where he seemed to belong). Then without that spurious entry the dab page seems a bit marginal. How about Whittingstall as a redirect to Eileen, if she appears to have been known by the single surname, with a hatnote to Fearnley-Whittingstall
  ?) No, on 2nd thoughts no harm in this 2-entry dab page!)
• Is there any indication that the tennis player was known as E F-W? If so, please add that to her article. If not, then don't redirect to it. It's very confusing at present, when the only indication of F-W is a mention of her marriage, way down the article.
• Please stick to the rule of giving dates and annotation to entries for people in dab pages, not just the bare names as you did at Fearnley-Whittingstall. MOSDAB says "For people, include their birth and death years (when known), and only enough descriptive information that the reader can distinguish between different people with the same name." If someone knows that it's Jane F-W they're looking for, they're likely to search on that name. If they just know the garden was designed by F-W, they need guidance at the dab page. They've got it now, but I was surprised that as a dab-specialist you didn't include it anyway. Perhaps the whole Wittingstall/F-W setup is still a work in progress? PamD 09:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again,

WP:MOSDAB of course doesn't apply but the lead line needs to be altered from "F-W may refer to" to "F-W is a surname...". Will do that. There's scope for a lot of confusion between dab pages and surname pages, but I think this is the right solution here. PamD 09:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

And I've now created a stub about the tennis-player's artist husband Edmund Owen Fearnley-Whittingstall (her first of 4 it seems, according to the fascinating unreliable source I found at http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=425294 !). Really must get on with some non-wiki real life stuff now... it's so easy to get led into interesting pathways. PamD 10:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you put in your later message, it is a surname page so

Hello

I suspect it's on your watchlist, but I made some fairly hefty revisions on this page so flagging it as a courtesy. I think the list should focus only on mistresses and alleged mistresses - other women Henry was somehow associated wirth is going to get very long.

Cheers Gogolwold (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Boleyn,

Thank you for creating Judith Grimes.

Hard to understand: it is written as a long description in poor English.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Kingsif}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Kingsif (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kingsif, I just created a redirect years ago, I'm not sure who created the article. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This message is automatically generated, it says that I tagged the article. Page curation sends the edit reason to the first user who edited the page, I don't recommend actively replying to these. Kingsif (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not as frequent of an "Editor" as I used to be, so I've forgotten a lot. There was/is a reference on my account's "Alerts" section, saying that you had questioned the Notability of "The Saluting Marine". Huh.

He has set quite an example that I understand has been followed at various national cemeteries and other relevant locations.

Our own local National Cemetery now typically has one such veteran who salutes the entire day while we civilians pass him by (on relevant federally-observed holidays).

I'd say that's rather relevant.

LP-mn (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, LP-mn, I'm glad to see the article is now in much better shape. I reviewed it for NEw Page Patrol, essentially saying it was OK for inclusion and to be indexed by Google. It had no references at the time, so was marked as unreferenced and that it's notability hadn't been made clear. Hopefully the iprovements have now addressed this. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article

Superfluous article based upon an alternate (and less accurate) transliteration of the Hebrew name Menahem (disambiguation) מנחם; both are acceptable (and mostly interchangeable) transliterations of the exact same name and should all be listed in one place.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Just to be clear, I am proposing that

Hello Boleyn,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the

WP:RPATROL

.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether
  Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure
  .
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

WP:SPAM

for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Menachem—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. StonyBrook (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

"Bertie Scott" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bertie Scott. Since you had some involvement with the Bertie Scott redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kenneth Shine for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kenneth Shine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Shine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for your occasional participation.

[Message text transferred to my

old-fashioned!) 13:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)][reply

]

MfD nomination of

James Ash (MP)

James Ash (MP) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The Engagement of St Ursula and Prince Etherius

Hi! Reading the source page in The Black Tudors supports that this is painted panel not a woven tapestry. It's actually from the Saint Auta Altarpiece - we have a lovely image in Commons. I'm going to update the article. - PKM (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving

Draft:Iyad Rimawi

to mainspace

Hello Boleyn, Greetings. Can you please review the draft again? I've added more references from reliable and independent websites and newspapers all in Inline citations format to boost the reliability, removed the promotional content. The article is already live on Arabic Wikipedia since August 2016. Can you please move it again to mainspace. Thanks for your help! KindaHamwi1 (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Humfrey (disambiguation)

The page

section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was an orphaned

disambiguation page which either

• disambiguated only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ended in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguated zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• was a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that did not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the

see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information

.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

Wikipedia:Deletion Review —Bagumba (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy deletion of Humphry (disambiguation)

The page

section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was an orphaned

disambiguation page which either

• disambiguated only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ended in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguated zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• was a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that did not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the

see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information

.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

Wikipedia:Deletion Review —Bagumba (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy deletion of Humphries (disambiguation)

The page

section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was an orphaned

disambiguation page which either

• disambiguated only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ended in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguated zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• was a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that did not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the

see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information

.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

Wikipedia:Deletion Review —Bagumba (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

You've got mail

Hello, Boleyn. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.DaveInCO (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, DaveInCO, I'll message you back. Boleyn (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request - Moving

Draft:Iyad Rimawi

to mainspace

Hi Boleyn, Hope you're doing well.

Could you can please review the draft again? I've added more references from reliable and independent websites and newspapers all in Inline citations format to boost the reliability, removed the promotional content. The article is already live on Arabic Wikipedia since August 2016. Can you please move it again to mainspace. Thanks for your help! KindaHamwi1 (talk) 08:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KindaHamwi1. If you click on the button to put the draft through for submission, it'll be looked at quite quickly. It certainly looks a lot better. Boleyn (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"George Horner (disambigution)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect George Horner (disambigution) should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 23#George Horner (disambigution) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"2305 AD" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2305 AD. Since you had some involvement with the 2305 AD redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Thomas Best (navy captain)

The article Thomas Best (navy captain) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

one source only not verifiable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Natadmim (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (
  WP:CIR: one to watch. PamD 16:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thanks, PamD. Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Harry Stanley (disammbiguation)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Harry Stanley (disammbiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Harry Stanley (disammbiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 19:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Gerald McCann (disambiguation page)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gerald McCann (disambiguation page). Since you had some involvement with the Gerald McCann (disambiguation page) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Coronavirus respiratory syndrome (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard

to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on

section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned

disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the

see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information

.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Richard Dalby (disambiguation)

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

per

hatnotes and, although the dab page lists a third entry, "See also": Ric Dalby, this fictional character who appeared on the soap opera Home and Away

from 2004 to 2008, was actually named Eric "Ric" Dalby, not Richard.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need of dispute resolution/moderation

Hi, i know this is not the correct channel for requesting opinion of a third editor in resolving an article related dispute but I hope you will help me resolve this issue. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hizbul_Mujahideen#Pakistan's_ISI_supports_the_outfit. This is the talk page discussion I created to resolve a matter relating to repeated edit reverts done by https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kashmiri to the article

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizbul_Mujahideen

I will request you to please take cognizance of this dispute and continue the discussion on the article talk page. I am also attaching links to the discussion I have had with the editor mentioned above to help you understand the matter well. I hope you will take this submission in good faith. Thank you https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kashmiri#Hizbul_Links_with_Pak_ISI https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AnadiDoD#May_2020

talk) 07:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi,

AnadiDoD. This topic is not one I know much on, and I'm not an admin; I'm sorry but I don't think my opinion would be very helpful here as I don't know enough. You may want to post at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, as you will be able to get someone better than me to help. Good luck, Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks

Thanks so much, this is a great reference for me for possible future similar editions. --37.35.185.168 (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chapinero Alto

Hi Boleyn, just a question... under what part of

WP:GEOLAND do you think the above article meets the criteria? Having lived in this very sector of Bogota, I am of the opinion that it's an unofficial name for the neighborhood... I don't even agree with the boundaries thrown up by Google Maps, and I doubt most Bogotanos would agree with them either. Being a Londoner, I get that in cities like London and New York, there are specific delineated boundaries for certain named neighborhoods, usually marked by ward boundaries or voting neighborhoods. I don't think this is the case in Bogota, though – I think it's done purely by the localidad (the equivalent of a NYC or London borough) – but I'll see if I can find any documentation that splits these localidades up further. Richard3120 (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, user:Richard3120, it sounds like you know more than me on this one - you may want to consider AfD. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I just wanted your interpretation of the situation. It's not urgent, so I'll wait until I can find out the legal status of the area. In any case, it's almost certainly never going to improve beyond the current one-line stub – it's a quiet residential area with no distinguishing buildings or landmarks, so I don't know what could be added to the article. Richard3120 (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Peggy Clarke (actress) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peggy Clarke (actress) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peggy Clarke (actress) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for AfD?

I think we need an AfD for

Dream Ballet (the musical number from Oklahoma!, as opposed to Dream ballet which is an OK article about the genre). See the Talk page there for more info. If you agree, would you start the AfD? I see that you have nominated AfDs before. Please let us know if you do, at the Talk:Dream Ballet talk page. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Unreferenced

Hi! Just a note re this edit. Tagging an article with {{unreferenced}} is often a judgement call, and it's not just a matter of whether it's got a "References" section or not. There's some relevant discussion in this thread, but factors to take into account are article size (tagging short articles is seldom helpful), and whether there might be references presented in a different fashion (say, as part of an "External links" section). I'm not saying that tagging this particular article was wrong, but just pointing out things that might be relevant. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A.D.Thompson

Although the information in the wikiarticle about this author (me) is not up to date, I am a real author and don't merit deletion, please. Please add this link: https://www.amazon.com/Dan-Thompson/e/B07MBRVRTC to my author page on Amazon which has my updated bio and credits thanks! email me questions: [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.11.44 (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC) Hello. I have no doubt you're a real author, which is a great achievement. Articles are added to Wikipedia if they meet

WP:GNG; if you think there are sources to meet that criteria, then by all means look to improve the article. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Speedy deletion nomination of Promenade Shopping Center (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard

to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on

section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned

disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the

see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information

.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for doing this - as it's no longer a dab it redirect to, it is pointless and possibly confusing. Boleyn (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Diamond Crossing

As you suggested, I have move the latest of my versions of

Diamond crossing to Draft:Diamond crossing. Wimbledon32 (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Accessing files on Wikicommons.from Wikipedia

I have a certain file on Wikipedia and an updated version on Wikicommons.

How does one access the commons file from wikipedia? Presumably there is some kind of prefix that does this? Wimbledon32 (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]