User talk:Boleyn/Archive 12

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Boleyn! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 940 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Christian Martin (rugby union) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please please please stop

Hi Boleyn

If you are back creating articles again, then you really should removed the "retired" tag from your user page.

The reason i am posting here is that I encountered another of your creations while monitoring some categories: John Heathcote (died 1795)

It's a bit better than the one-line sub-stubs you were creating earlier in the year, but the short article as you left had several problems:

1. You had placed Heathcote in Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for English constituencies, even though he died 5 years before the UK was created. This has been pointed out to you before, and it's all explained at Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for English constituencies
2. You had tagged Heathcote with {{UK-MP-stub}}. That's wrong, for the same reason as the category was wrong: the correct tag is {{GreatBritain-MP-stub}}
3. You placed him in the non-existent Category:British MPs 1790-1795 rather than the correct Category:British MPs 1790–1796

I then looked at some of your other recent contributions:

Ambrose Phillipps

1. Mistagged with {{UK-MP-stub}}
2. Wrongly balled as "the Member of Parliament for". A quick look at the constituency article would show that there were TWO Mps for that constituency, so he was "a Member of Parliament for", not "the"

Charles Blount, 3rd Earl of Newport

• This had been redirected, but you reverted the redirect. I restored the redirect, because the text you had created contained nothing beyond what's in Earl of Newport, apart from the assertion that he was a Member of Parliament, which appears to be untrue (I can see no evidence for that)

Edward Lewis (Devizes MP)

1. Mistagged with {{UK-MP-stub}}
2. Labelled as "the MP", when there were two of them
3. mistagged with {{UK-MP-stub}}. That should be {{England-MP-stub}}; he died 130 years before the UK was created, and was a member of the Parliament of England, which was abolished in 1707
4. No category for his time as MP (he should be in Category:Members of the pre-1707 Parliament of England)
5. You state that he was "British", but he was English, not British - he died 30 years before the Kingdom of Great Britain was created

I haven't the time to go through all the rest of your recent creations, but I see no reason to expect that the standard is any higher.

Since i started writing this message, you posted to my talk page to say that had returned "to ensure that all the articles I created are referenced and to see if I can expand any". But all except one of the articles I mention above was newly created by you, and despite their brevity they are full of mistakes on matters which should be very well known to an editor like yourself who has made so many edits in the same field.

I don't know what to say here, except to despair. There are still hundreds of abysmal sub-stubs waiting to be cleaned up after your previous bouts of high-speed editing, and as you know this rapid-fire creation off substandard pages has been repeatedly criticised before, including several threads at WP:ANI.

And now, instead of cleaning up the humungous mess you left behind, you're creating more.

Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please ... if you really do want to create articles, please can you first take the time to try to understand something enough of the topics you are writing about so that you don't keep on repeating the same very basic mistakes in one article after another?

You've had plenty of offers of help before, but AFAICS you have ignored them all.

Now that it's restarted, I can only conclude that it amounts wilfully disruptive editing. I'm going away for a few weeks, but when I'm back I will open an RFC. This has gone for far too long, and it's still just a make-work for others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You should do whatever you think best, although I cannot see how you conclude that I am wilfully disruptively editing. I will try to answer your points. I have been working through my list of previously created articles, and this has included recreating several articles on MPs which I had previously created, but which were deleted by you on the grounds of not expanding the information given in the constituency article. I have ensured that they give more than the constituency article, have at least one reliable reference and a succession box.

Regarding the retirement tag, I removed it from my user page, but think I forgot to on my talk page, where it also was. I probably will now, although it's probably a temporary and short return mainly to try to address issues with articles I previously created; I was unhappy to think they were sitting there, needing work, and that I wasn't contributing. Thank you for pointing out UK/England issue, I will check these more closely as I look through the rest. You're quite right that you pointed out months ago that I had made this mistake in previous articles, but as I haven't edited in a couple of months, I had forgotten that this was something I needed to be especially careful with. Duly noted.

Regarding the Charles Blount article, I really think that an article changed to a redirect to another article (which is effectively a deletion of the article) should have the reasons clearly given on the Talk page of the article. If the issue is simply that it has one error and doesn't expand on the list article, then I would probably address those issues rather than change it to a redirect; if it was more than that, i.e. notability issues, then of course I would know to leave it as it is.

Since you raised that I had written that several MPs were 'a' MP rather than 'the' MP I've been careful with this too. However, I don't feel it's a huge mistake or justifies a cutting edit summary. To describe my recently restored articles as full of mistakes seems to me to be overblown and inaccurate. I appreciate your advice (when politely put) and the hard work you've put into cleaning up articles I created. I have previously apologised for the mistakes I made when rushing articles, and am doing my best to undo any damage done. Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Boleyn, those articles are very short: there isn't much in them to wrong, but you still consistently manage to make the same mistakes over and over again, on points which a conscientious editor would have picked up on long ago. The mistakes may be small, but there are lts of them in each article, and they are repeated again and again. My concern is and remains, that you spend your time creating lots of articles badly, rather than learning how to do fewer and do them accurately. It's still a full-time-job tidying up after you :(

It's very sad to see this rapid-fire article creation starting over again, but I am trying very hard to restrain my comments; if some of them sharp, they are still very mild compared to what I feel like saying. For example, I did not mention anything about the succession boxes you created, because I was pleased to see that you were at last trying to create them (they're really useful) ... but on that point it would be much much better if you took the time to learn how to create them properly, by studying the succession boxes in other similar articles. Why create so many malformed boxes, rather than taking the time to learn how to do them right before continuing?

I'm really pleased that you are trying to undo the damage ... but I'm sorry to say that you are still creating so many more articles which need lots of tidying up even before any new content is added ... and the fact that you are creating articles previously deleted doesn't make it any better.

I do want to believe that you are trying to be constructive ... but if that's really the case, please take more care. There's no speed test. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No, there isn't and that isn't my aim in going through these articles. I had thought I was getting the succession boxes right (I've only just learned how to do them at all) but will revise what else they may need to include. Boleyn (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ambrose Phillipps

Hi, Welcome back, but ... could you check this chap's dates, as you've got him posthumously in Parliament! PamD (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Those are the dates given at Leigh Rayment, I checked the ref, but obviously it makes little sense. I don't know if it means technically he remained in until there was a replacement? Anyway, I changed it in the article to 1737, but moved the ref earlier, so the ref only backed up the info given on Leigh Rayment. Is LR a usually reliable source? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Now fixed. Rayment is very reliable, and in this case what happened is simply that he died in 1737, but the by-election for his replacement was not held until the following year. Quite a common occurrence with MPs: death late in one year, by-election early the next year. And, naturally, a person ceases to be an MP once they are dead ... and although several MPs have been elected posthumously, they are instantly disqualified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hi - welcome back and congratulations on your little event. I hope all is going well.

I for one really appreciate your work in kicking off articles. It takes me over twice as long to create articles from scratch as to build from a stub and it helps because you have already linked in the linked articles. Maybe not perfect, but "better than nothing"! given there is an enormous task to be done here. Things seem over-complicated by the Eng/GB/UK differentiations and we are still left with the anomoly that Tudor MPs represent UK constituencies - pity we dont use "Westminster" throughout. Personally I find the Category approach is inherently imperfect and generally unusable except for specific exercises so I don't waste my time or risk odium by trying to pick my way through the morass - others with an interest can do that. As I work through blocks of MPs I can assure you that there are many many articles - some created by those who now know better - that were far from perfect when created and which have hardly been touched in three or four years. So keep up the good work.

I notice you want to merge your accounts. Here is an administrator who seems to be very good at merging edit history User:Graham87. All the best Motmit (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate that. Boleyn (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

May I also add my welcome? It's nice to have you back, Boleyn. You and your knowledge of Tudor history have been missed around here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeanne, good to hear from you. Boleyn (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Merging accounts

Hi Boleyn, unfortunately I can only merge edit histories, not accounts. The only people who can merge accounts are system administrators, and they are usually very busy keeping the site running. The note that is on your user page about the three accounts is a good idea. Graham87 02:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Graham. If you could merge my edit histories, it would be a big help. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 07:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, I can't do that. I can only merge page histories, not peoples' contributions. Graham87 10:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood, when you said you could merge edit histories, I thought you meant all my edits. Thanks anyway, Boleyn (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox

I have moved Gabriel Hanger, 1st Baron Coleraine to User:Boleyn/sandbox since it was nowhere near ready for the (article) namespace. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I now see that you have created a lot of these sub-stubs. Please stop. Why cannot you wait until you have created a proper stub? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

All seven had been created in the last hour and all had under construction tags on them. If you'd waited another hour, they'd all have been finished. Boleyn (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Joining the bandwagon here... I think you should be careful about producing numerous stubs on British MP's. I have now spent a good deal of time improving one of them, Gabriel Hanger, 1st Baron Coleraine. The main problem is the succession box. Firstly, an MP should appear under the name the had at the time they sat in the House of Commons. In this case the Earl of Aylesford was styled Lord Guernsey, the Earl of Egmont was styled Viscount Egmont, Lord Fairfax was styled Robert Fairfax (although he may have been styled Master of Cameron) and Lord de Clifford was known as Edward Southwell. Secondly, it is customary, in the case of constituencies with two MP's, to include the dates when the other MP represented the constituency. I have now added the dates for the three MP's who represented Maidstone alongside Lord Coleraine. In the case when another MP represented the constituency for the entire period (such as Viscount Perceval) it's customary to leave out the dates. It is also normal to include a succession box for peerages. Could you PLEASE use this system in any future MP article you create. Do you really expect a number of other users to clean up after you? Perhaps you should also spend a little more time on each article, and for instance not use abbreviations such as "9 Jan 1697". It would also be useful to include personal details in articles. So instead of creating six new articles on MP's you should perhaps be creating three and spend a little more time on these three. Regards, Tryde (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. I'm working on correcting the articles I've created in line with your suggestions, and will post a full answer to this later on. Boleyn (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

In answer to 'Do you really expect a number of other users to clean up after you?' the answer is an unequivocal no. When people have pointed out things that should be added, as you have, I go through all the articles I've created on MPs and adjust them accordingly - something which takes a lot of time, but which I'm happy to do, and have already started doing in line with your suggestions. However, my aim is to create a basis for a good article, not to complete a good article itself. The latest articles have succession boxes (even if some smaller details weren't included), information on when the MPs represented these constituencies, categories and at least one reliable reference. I am spending time on these. For one of the MPs, I spent over one and a half hours just on his succession box, and will go back and spend longer now you've pointed out other things. I have only just started doing succession boxes, so I'm not surprised that there were a couple of smaller things I'd accidentally left out, but I think on the whole what you've pointed out are very small issues. It is much better that an article is created, with accurate information, reliable reference(s), succession box and categories, even if there are a couple of things that should also be added, than that there is nothing. This then gives a good basis for someone with more expertise in this area to turn it into a good article; even if no one else edits it, it will still be helpful to the reader. I will go back over the articles and edit in accordance with your suggestions. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course you don't need to create "good articles". Many biographies of obscure MP's will contain only little information - you'd probably need to find very specific biographical works in order to expand them - and will never become featured articles. However, they should be correct and follow the format used in other articles. For baronets in succession boxes use the style [[Sir John Smith, 1st Baronet|Sir John Smith, Bt]]. I have also seen that you use "with" in the predecessor and successor spaces. I have never seen that used in other boxes. Some people use "and" but I think that looks ugly, so I suggest you just add the two names. Regards, Tryde (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

William Burgess (disambiguation)

Thanks for fixing my 'deletion by mistake'. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 21:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No bother, I thought that might have been what happened. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Your help is needed

Boleyn, I need your help. I created an article on this woman yesterday: Elizabeth Leyburne, Duchess of Norfolk. I noticed that you created an article on her daughter Anne Howard, Countess of Arundel. Would you have any info on Elizabeth, especially regarding her supposed Catholicism? I haven't found anything which states her religion. Thank you so much.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jeanne. She doesn't ring a bell, but I'll search my books. Boleyn (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added a couple of bits, but haven't found much so far. I can find info on the Dacres being very conservative and this leading Leonard Dacre into treason (ODNB article on L Dacre) and her second marriage was also into a well-known Catholic family, which indicates that she was probably of the same persuasion, but it's just circumstantial. I can't find anything on her beliefs, not so far anyway. I'll keep looking. Boleyn (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's all I've been able to find, although it did inspire me to finally create an article on Kathy Lynn Emerson. Boleyn (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your additions, you have been very helpful! Hopefully I'll find something which says more about her religious beliefs.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Kathy Lynn Emerson

Hi Boleyn, We know you're a very experienced editor, so please try to get things right. Looking at this article as you left it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kathy_Lynn_Emerson&oldid=392004937 as "no longer under construction", there's:

• External links all appearing as [4] etc: you need to add a title, within the square brackets, or if you're just going to leave the bare URL then drop the brackets so that the URL itself appears.
• External links all run together without being separated by bullets onto separate lines
• The one reference was just a bare URL
• References after the External links - WP:Layout specifies that they go before
• Category:Writers - well, yes, it's a relevant category, but it wasn't difficult to find several rather more precise ones. No nationality, no genre?
• No default sort key, so she'd be filing under K rather than E

• I find it easiest to use {{subst:L|||Emerson, Kathy Lynn}} (if a date of birth and/or death is known, it goes between the pairs of "|" as {{subst:L|1917|1990|Bloggs, Joe}} etc). That generates the birth, death, and "living person" categories and the Defaultsort, all in one quick line of typing. L is short for "Lifetime", a category which now has to be "subst"ed, but the shortcut means it's no more to type than it used to be!

• It's conventional to start off "X is a Yish Z", where Yish is the nationality.
• And it was easy to improve the article (well, I see them as improvements!) in a few other ways with no particular expertise in the area and zero prior knowledge of the specific author.

I don't want you to think I'm Wikistalking you, but please try to get more of it right first time and not leave so many pieces for other people to come and tidy up after you! Thanks. PamD (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Another couple of points: Well done for remembering to provide redirects from the pseudonyms; it would be useful to list her books (even more so if you added ISBNs which would then "automagically" link); I wonder whether it would be useful to add redirects from the series titles and Susanna Appleton / Diana whatsit - I can't find chapter and verse anywhere as to whether this is generally thought OK, but I'd think it would (a) help readers and (b) reduce the chance of someone creating a duplicating stub article elsewhere. Cheers. PamD (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Out-commenting

At Nicostratus some lines were commented out (I made them visible, your revert crossed my rewrite). It might be better to put such things onto the talk page: Out-commented lines will only be found accidently; and readability is not so good either. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. As it stands, most of the entries on this now don't meet MOS:DAB, in particular MOS:DABMENTION, but I've left it as it is. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Robert Austen (1642-1696)

Hi, the complicated succession box for this chap didn't seem to be working right - the years he was MP were appearing in the wrong place, and the word "with" wasn't appearing. I rummaged around for other multi-member constituency MPs and found George Heneage whose boxes looked better, and reformatted your info into that format - using slightly different set of succession box templates. It also doesn't seem to be the norm to include the dates for the "before and after" MPs, so I stripped them out which makes it look a bit less messy.

I couldn't find a "how to do succession boxes" anywhere, and the documentation at {{Template:S-start}} is a bit overwhelming, so I used the usual principle of "find one which looks OK and imitate". I tried to find a Featured Article for a British MP: William Wilberforce doesn't have dates for his before/after people, though I realise the multi-member aspect might be an argument for leaving them in place! Hope you approve of the new version of Robert A. PamD (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks PamD for helping out - it seems no one finds these easy. These boxes are a monstrosity of complexity and provide scope for compulsive editors to get hung up because others dont follow their unwritten rules. At least the Succession box template is relatively straightforward, but there is unfortunately a more complicated version using hyphenated code which is awful. The important thing is to get the links in. It wasn't hard to add the end box which gave the problem on this article originally, and it hasn't been hard to put a few things straight as I work on more important material in articles. Just take note of the changes I have made. You are free to put in what you like and if others like it they will adopt it - if not they will remove it. There are some who seem totally obsessed with the format of these wretched boxes whereas there is an enormous amount of work to be done firstly creating the articles and secondly adding useful information. Keep up the good work - I will support your efforts Motmit (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Tryde suggested that the dates for before and after MPs should be added it, but perhaps I misread the message, I'll look over it again. I'll look at your format and see if that would be better to use in the future. So long as it's got the basic info in, I don't think it matters too much. Thanks to both of you, Boleyn (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sir Robert Austen, 4th Baronet

I thought you were going to stopp mass-producing MP articles, at least until you had understood the basics of succession boxes. Is this article of use to anyone? It was the same with Robert Austen (above) until someone cleaned up after you. Please stop. Tryde (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Dont let people bully you. You are working very hard and I really appreciate the work you have done kicking off articles. It has been really interesting developing some of your creations. There is a massive amount of work to be done and every little helps. This is a cooperative project and everybody develops what others have begun. Best Motmit (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to bully anyone. Boleyn has been asked over and again to stop creating articles full of errors regarding both facts and formatting. Creating a succession box is not hard, why persist in creating articles with succession boxes that are completely horrendous-looking, like the one in Sir Robert Austen, 4th Baronet. This article should never have entered main space in the state it is in now. There is absolutely nothing in creating basic articles for MPs. However, they should be correctly formatted. I have cleaned up around ten articles created by Boleyn and I assume there are many more. This gets tiresome. Tryde (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It has a note saying it is in the middle of expansion. Seems Boleyn prefers to create articles on the hoof. I use wordpad offline and copy in the text when ready. I have no problem with developing Boleyn's articles and fix any errors I find as I go along together with the hundreds of errors in other articles that have been around for years. It just seems someone is trying to help develop an encyclopedia and getting an awful lot of harrassment for her efforts Motmit (talk) 07:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Having had my attention drawn to it I've now fixed the succession box: Boleyn, you'd left it looking like this, and if you didn't have time to carry on working on it it might have been better to cut and paste that into your sandbox for now and come back to it later, or to comment out the text from the article, rather than leave such a mess. I also added some geographical context: Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, and the opening sentence needs to specify what country someone was from, rather than assuming that the rest of the world will recognise that New Romney is an English constituency. PamD (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I imagine with a new baby it is sometimes necessary to drop what you are doing in the middle of it.Motmit (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that had crossed my mind too - so the baby is probably a good reason to use a sandbox for work on complicated things like succession boxes, and paste them into the article when ready, rather than risk having to leave something in the article in such a garbled state. Or get so familiar with the key-strokes needed for commenting text out that you can do it in a few seconds while rushing away. PamD (talk) 09:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

To illustrate my point, I have now spent the last half-hour cleaning up succession boxes in five articles created by Boleyn: Sir Stephen Lennard, 2nd Baronet, Percival Hart, Sir William Hardres, 4th Baronet, Barnham Rider and Sir Richard Levinge, 1st Baronet (the one in the last article was particularly awful-looking). I should be able to spend my time here more constructively. I don't doubt that Boleyn has good intentions. However, she should be much more careful when creating new articles. Tryde (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

My internet connection stopped working, and just started again a couple of hours ago. I do prefer to create them straight in, mainly because if someone looks them up, it's better to find a started article, even if the succession box is still being developed, than to find nothing at all. Also I rarely leave them until I've finished, so I haven't seen it as a problem. I'll try working in my sandbox from now on. Tryde, if you've looked at the articles I've created sine you messaged me about succession boxes, you'll have seen that I've tried to incorporate your suggestions; with this, the problem was difficult to foresee, but I'm happy to use the sandbox to eliminate the chances of it happening again. However, I really don't think there's a need to message me every time you're not happy with something about an article I've created. You can see that I'm trying and improving and had taken on board and implemented some of your suggestions even though I personally don't think there's that important. Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Boleyn, the format for succession boxes added by PamD to Samuel Western is much easier to use than the one you've been using up until now, so use this instead. However, I've never seen the years in brackets before so I think they should be removed. Anyway, she got the dates wrong by about 200 years so that needs to be changed! In succession boxes for baronets please add the territorial designation. The format for predecessors and successors is [[Sir John Smith, 1st Baronet|John Smith]] and not [[Sir John Smith, 1st Baronet]]. I hope you find these tips helpful. Regards, Tryde (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If you use "with1=" this won't work (don't ask me to explain why - see your version of Robert Bristow (1662-1706)). Begin with "with=" and then "with2=" and so on. Tryde (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm trying to use this system now. I'm surprised there isn't a MOS for this. Boleyn (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the centuries!

But, I've now found something approaching an MOS for parliamentary succession boxes, though maybe it's an intention rather than yet a standard. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Succession_Box_Standardization/Guidelines#Parliamentary_seats_.28s-par.29. Among other things it specifies: "In constituencies which returned multiple members, all predecessors and successors should be listed, separated by a single
to break to the next line. Members of Parliament simultaneously representing the constituency should be listed after the name of the constituency in small type (use <small> before the words you want to appear in small type and </small> right after them). If one of the other members represented the constituency throughout the length of the subject's term, the date range may be omitted; otherwise, the years between which that member served should appear after the member's name.". So I think our dates in brackets are indeed appropriate. PamD (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

But, on looking more carefully, the brackets should be removed - perhaps that's what Tryde meant, when saying "However, I've never seen the years in brackets before so I think they should be removed.", though I read that as saying that the dates should be removed, not just the brackets! Feel free to remove any of the brackets I've added. PamD (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

And the section on titles, further up the page, has a lot to say about forms of names for Baronets etc in succession boxes, which might be useful. PamD (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Wyndham, 1st Baron Wyndham

I noticed that you had also created an article on this chap: Thomas Wyndham, Baron Wyndham. I incorporated the material in your article into Thomas Wyndham, 1st Baron Wyndham. The ordinal is always used for heredeitary peers even if there was just one holder. Tryde (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Tryde, I think the correct thing to do would have been to WP:MOVE Boleyn's existing article, created in July, rather than start a different article for the same man on 17 October. Presumably you searched for an existing article, eg at Thomas Wyndham dab page, so would have realised you were creating a duplicate? PamD (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That is probably correct. However, I found the red link in Lord Chancellor of Ireland and didn't realise that there was an article already. Otherwise I would have moved the original article, of course. I clearly stated when merging the articles that I incorporated material from Thomas Wyndham, Baron Wyndham, so I hope this is alright. Tryde (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That's great, I probably misnamed it because I created it from a red link and didn't realise it was missing the number. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Flourishing

Hi, I spotted a "fl." date and had a feeling I remembered seeing something about them... checked WP:DOB and it says:

• When the individual is known to have been alive (flourishing) at certain dates, [[floruit|fl.]] or {{fl.}} is used in articles, not disambiguation pages, to link to floruit, in case the meaning is not familiar: "Osmund (fl. 760–772) ..."

Always something new to learn, eh? I fixed Jeffrey Hamet O'Neal, though I did think you could have given him a few more links when creating him. Hope baby is flourishing! PamD (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, he is indeed. Boleyn (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've filled in the {{DNB}} template there: the syntax for that has changed recently. Ideally there should be a link back from the Wikisource article, and that automatically takes it out of s:Category:DNB No WP. I wanted to mention that there is a new tool for that category, with links on the category page over there. For example for letter O click to get this page coming a little slowly, and there is some useful information about how the non-linked Wikisource DNB articles might be matched up with Wikipedia. This particular article comes out at the bottom. Obviously this is useful both for the maintenance task, and for finding DNB biographies that perhaps don't exist here. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look at that. Boleyn (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

John Beaumont (MP)

Thepeerage.com has further information on this person that may be of relevance. He also has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography. That is if you are interested in expanding the article. Regards, Tryde (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I probably won't add to it, because my main interest is in getting articles started so there's at least something on them, unless I know about them. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Adam Damlip

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

A tag has been placed on Adam Damlip requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Special Cases ^{LOOK, A TALK PAGE!!!!} 07:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've undone this absurd speedy nomination and left a note on the editor's talk page to point out that it was clearly absurd ... but they deleted my comment almost immediately. Some editors have very odd ideas. PamD (talk) 08:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, it seems the editor's only been around a week or so. Boleyn (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to DAB

This edit broke many internal links that now direct to a wrong page. Can you please fix that? The talk page banner needs to be removed too now. Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, all done now. Boleyn (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

John Conyers (MP)‎‎

Well, that's taken most of the day. The succession boxes were a real nightmare but I think I've got him sorted out now ... en route I created John Conyers (disambiguation) page and cleaned up and expanded Conyers (disambiguation)! I only started on him because I was puzzled to see him unlinked in John Toke's succession boxes, but then found he hadn't been linked before anywhere else either - presumably someone way back found the US politician and couldn't work out how to create red links, or something like that. Thanks for the West Looe connection. Not sure what the official policy is for a succession box which spans two versions of Parliament - you can see my improvised version. If BHG was around I'd consult but she seems to be genuinely away at the moment. PamD (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Good to have you back Annie.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, so far I'm enjoying being back. Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Nice new stubs too (with sources!). ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Succession boxes

Your version:

Please do not use "Bt" after predecessor and successor in succession boxes for baronets (but use the style ""Sir John Smith, Bt" in other succession boxes). Please add territorial designation for baronetcy.

Better version:

Your version:

Better version:

Regards, Tryde (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Haigh

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Christopher Haigh, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.history.ox.ac.uk/staff/postholder/haigh_ca.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've left a message on the page, assume the only problem is his list of works. Hope it's OK now. Boleyn (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Perth Martyrs

Oh dear. I had a look at this as I have family roots near Perth, wanted to check whether they were tried, died or what there. Had a look at the text of Foxe's, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Martyrs_%28Foxe%29/Chapter_XV (it must be worth adding a link to that wikisource to the article, I know there's a template for it, can't think of it just now) and it seems they were all six both tried and died in Perth, BUT, only one was burned. Others hanged and drowned. Please make sure that you put only accurate information into Wikipedia.

It would also be very helpful to link terms such as "Protestant" in an article like this, and indicate just which set of beliefs they were martyred for.

It also isn't useful to link the names in the article, as the links all redirect back to the same article. I was about to unlink them, then wondered whether you had plans to create articles for each of the 6, so didn't. But those 6 articles are going to be one-liners if anything. If you do create them, please make sure the content is correct, ie NOT "was burned" if they weren't. Might be better to stick to just the one article, with more detail in it from Foxe's. Thanks. PamD (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Have linked the ref to Wikisource text.PamD (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was looking for more information on the individuals to see if they could justify individual articles, but there didn't seem much point, all names redirect to Perth Martyrs. I've removed them now and corrected the execution info, but didn't remove the dispute tag, I left it in case you had further concerns. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Dates

Hi. In succession boxes like the one in Edward Blaker, please add the dates for the other MP. If the other MP was the same for the entire period this is unnecessary. The succession box for the baronetcy in Sir Herbert Springet, 1st Baronet needs to be corrected. Use the succession box I added above. Remember also to use the name the MP held at the time he was an MP. For instance, in your article on Richard Tufton, 5th Earl of Thanet, you have stated that his predecessor as MP for Appleby was Thomas Tufton, 6th Earl of Thanet. Richard didn't succeed in the earldom until his brother's death in 1684 and anyway it is impossible for a 17th-century English peer to have sat in the House of Commons. This also applies to baronets. If an MP didn't become a baronet until after he was an MP, don't use the style "Sir X X, Bt". I'm not trying to be nitpicky here, but this is the system used. Btw, in the article on Springet, one solution to the problem is to simply remove the first two succession boxes (where we don't have any information from Rayment to use). Regards, Tryde (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Tryde. I'm afraid I do feel you're being nitpicky. There is no MOS on succession boxes but I've incorporated the majority of your suggestions into the succession boxes I've created anyway. I will go in most instances with the name as given in the constituency article, as these seem to usually be right; if I'm unsure I'll give the name in the article title. Regarding the baronets, I thought previously you'd asked me to do it Sir X X, Bt if it was in a s-par box; now I'll do it however it's written in the constituency article. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Use the name the person held when he was an MP. If he became a baronet after sitting in parliament, don't use the style "Sir X X, Bt", but simply "X X". And please add dates when several other MP's represented a constituency along with the MP the article is about. You did it before so I can't understand why you stopped. Tryde (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Boleyn, I thought that Tryde's comment was a polite and friendly effort to help you improve your contributions to a point where others coukd expand them if they wanted to, but where they wouldn't need to tidying up even if no content was added. I think it's a pity that your reply wasn't more along the lines of "thanks for taking the time to explain that to me". :(

Tryde is right about the names: a lot of MPs changed their names due to inheritances, more of them got knighthoods or baronetcies, and a significant number later became peers, sometimes having a courtesy title before they succeeded. The constituency articles are not necessarily a sufficient guide to what name to use in a succession box, because more than the name may have changed while the person was an MP ... but it doesn't take long to check. E.g. X MP succeeded Sir Thingummy Wotsit, 96th Baronet: a quick check of Rayment's list of baronets will tell you when the 95th Baronet died, and that's the date when Sir Thingummy Wotsit, 96th Baronet succeeded to the title, so now you know whether or not he was a baronet at the relevant dates.

Similarly, Tryde is right wrt to the dates in the succession boxes. There isn't an MOS about this, but a lot of detailed work was put in a few years ago by WP:SBS, and the guidance is at WP:SBSGUIDE, and the examples there do use the dates ... and so do many thousands of articles.

I have been really impressed by how in the last month, you really do seem to have tried to make stubs that are more than the bare minimum "Foo existed", and which don't need a lot of tidying up by others. I want to continue to believe that you are trying in good faith to produce better stubs ... so when an experienced editor politely points out a few needed tweaks, as Tryde did above, it'd be nice to see a little more good faith in your response. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Tryde, sorry for the delay in responding, I seem to have missed your last message. The reason I stopped adding the dates was because another editor removed them and I didn't want to spend time on this if there's not a clear consensus. Regarding the names, I think I'd just got out of the habit but have now been adding them.

BHG, thank you for your message. The reason I may have sounded snippy in the message to Tryde was because she was sending me suggestions almost daily, which would make any editor feel a bit harassed, especially as when I changed to Tryde's way of doing the succession boxes, several editors, including very experienced ones, changed them to a version nearer what I'd been doing originally, so I felt frustrated by the whole thing. Boleyn (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

...for correcting my mistake here. I didn't realize what I had done. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No bother, it was a useful addition as it showed up that the link to the other disambiguation page was missing. Thanks for your message, Boleyn (talk) 08:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sir John Fagg, 1st Baronet

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

7,900 hits! Well done for kicking this off and all the others. Some of us use your useful list to develop your articles into something worthwhile instead finding opportunities to criticise. Motmit (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Any stub can be expanded. The problem with Boleyn's stubs was not (in most cases) that they lacked any prospect of expansion, but that they were a) so poorly categorised, stub-tagged and cross-linked that they were unlikely to be found by other editors who might expand them; and b) that the few facts asserted in the substubs were usually unref and often plain false. The article on Sir John Fagg was one of Boleyn's more recent creations, and her initial work left it as an okay stub. The same could not have been said of the unchecked rubbish Boleyn was splattering out earlier in the year, and I hope that Boleyn can see how the more thorough work she is now doing leads to much better results all round.

Well done, Boleyn. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Motmit, though the credit for the DYK and the article as it is belongs to you. You've expanded so many stubs I've created into great articles, and I really appreciate the effort you've put into them and your support.

BHG, thanks for the 'well done'. It's a shame you needed to repeat all your past criticism at the same time, but I'm glad that you don't have any real concerns about my present work. Best wishes Boleyn (talk) 09:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Nicholas Haddock (1723-1781)

Please take a bit more care: you had his dates as MP wrong, and the succession box for the wrong parliament, and you didn't give the dates for his fellow MPs. I also changed "The" to "the", though I see the Rochester article uses a capital T: it just doesn't look right to me, though titles aren't my speciality! When I'd made the various changes I saw that your last edit was only a few minutes ago, so perhaps you were going to come back and tidy up... apologies if I've been correcting a Work in Progress! PamD (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't done the double-checking on it yet, but thanks for saving me the trouble. I agree re 'The/the', I just copied it from the constituency article as it's not my area, but it does look wrong to me. Boleyn (talk) 09:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sir Thomas Colby, 1st Baronet

You had him in the wrong Parliament (the English not the British one) and in the wrong Baronetage (that of England and not Great Britain). Please be more careful... When you create succession boxes for baronets, I suggest you use the one I supplied you with above. Then other users won't have to clean up after you. There is also no need to add ranks such as "Admiral" to succession boxes for MPs. Regards, Tryde (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just corrected a mistake you made in this article, but I wouldn't dream of leaving you a critical message about it, because I appreciate your effort on it and know that mistakes happen. Checking every edit I make and sending me critical messages every time you spot an error is going too far and isn't helpful, although I'm aware you intend it to be. I add all articles I create to my watchlist and so am aware what changes you make in any of them, without you sending me a message. Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Boleyn, you have improved a lot over the last month. However, you're still making stupid mistakes like the ones in the Colby article. I think it would be good if you could just slow down a bit. This is not a contest. When you are still making mistakes on a regular basis you must expect that other users will point this out to you. I provided you with a succession box to be used for baronets and I don't know why you can't use it. I also see that you have begun omitting the "Bt" part for baronets in succession boxes. Why? You did it before and now you have stopped. It's not the end of the world but this is the style used. I am well aware that Colby Baronets linked back to the article on Sir Thomas Colby and I know this is technically wrong, I just think a blue link looks so much better than bold text in black. The problem is that some readers will be annoyed when they expect to find a new article. Maybe I will have a re-think. If you find that I make regular mistakes you are very welcome to inform me about this. Regards, Tryde (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

MPs style

Looking through a few of your articles on MPs I notice that you write eg, "He was a Member of Parliament (MP) for Southwark... ". Should this not be "He was Member of Parliament (MP) for Southwark...", or "He was MP for Southwark" (certainly not "He was a MP")? Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I originally wrote it as that, and then someone started changing them to 'a MP' or 'the MP', thereby differentiating the sole MPs for the joints. I don't know which way is best. Boleyn (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see (I didn't realise that this was the subject of some extended debate above). To write "Michael Portillo was the MP for Enfield Southgate" is as correct as writing "Michael Portillo was MP for Enfield Southgate". What is not correct is to write "Michael Portillo was an MP for Enfield Southgate" (there's only one at a time). "Michael Portillo was an MP, who blah blah" is OK tho', but "Michael Portillo was a MP" is grammatically incorrect, like saying "I have a arm." Ericoides (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ericodes, you seem to be missing the point that until 1950, some constituencies returned more than one MP.

So, Jack Straw is the Member of Parliament (MP) for Blackburn ... but Thomas Barclay was a Member of Parliament (MP) for Blackburn. To write that he was "the MP" would imply he was the onmly one at time, which would be untrue (Philip Snowden represented the same constituency at the same time).

Of course, if we are just using the abbreviation, Thomas Barclay was an MP for Blackburn.

Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks BHG, you're right, I was missing the point. Ericoides (talk) 06:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference style

Hi, I'm not sure what the ideal way is to cite Leigh Rayment's pages - you can see my idea at James Barnett (MP), where I was about to slap on a {{Bare URLs}} template but decided to be more constructive (and Tryde or BHG might drop by with comments!) - but please don't just use the bare URL. We expect to see that from beginners, but as an experienced editor you know you should make your refs into properly formatted references. That way if, heaven forbid, the Leigh Rayment pages were to disappear, we'd still have an eye-legible record of where you sourced the information. (And the usual stuff about "Please check"... I wondered why Ralph B had only one predecessor, then discovered JB's second term of office, then noticed none of RB's "with" people had dates... oh dear. Again, perhaps you should slow down and create fewer, better, articles?) PamD (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Your plea seems to have had no effect. Another bare URL and ugly-looking succession box in Sir Moyle Finch, 1st Baronet. There is simply no way of stopping Boleyn!!! Tryde (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Why don't the pair of you stop worrying about Boleyn's creations. Neither of you seem to take the trouble develop the articles but limit yourselves to deck chair arranging and then carping about minor errors and failures to conform to unimportant obsessions. It is not difficult to do a quick google search to find something valuable to add and I have had to sort out quite a few errors that you have both introduced. So I suggest you let me get on with developing these articles and resist the temptation to look up Boleyn's user page to see what she has created and resist the temptation to fill her talk page with snottograms. Thanks Motmit (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I consider my comments to be constructive, and I also in this lot of edits took considerable trouble to develop the article. The request to use proper references rather than bare URLs is hardly "an unimportant obsession". Calm down. PamD (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I fully support those who are trying to persuade Boleyn to improve the quality of the stubs which she creates so prolificly. This has been going on for a long time, and it is very disappointing (to put it mildly) that after creating hundreds of articles on a narrow range of topics (MPs) Boleyn continues to make so many errors.

Yes, of course ... any stub can be expanded. That's the purpose of a stub, but it's not what's being discussed here. The problem which PamD is pointing out is the ongoing problem that Boleyn continues to produce stubs which require tidying up just to make decent stubs, even if they are not expanded. Despite months of complaints, she is still sloppy with categorisation, still hasn't started to create properly-formatted succession boxes, and so on.

All of this has been pointed out to Boleyn by many editors. All of them have asked her to simply slow down and lean how to do things properly so that she doesn't require a full-time cleanup crew to follow her and fix all the simple things she repeatedly gets wrong. There's been no end of explanations, offers of help, words of support as well as of rebuke ... but although we have come a long way from the abysmal one-line sub-stubs which Boleyn was creating six months ago, we Boleyn is still acting as if there was a race to create as many new pages as possible.

This is all very sad. I really welcome the efforts that Boleyn has made so far to create better stubs, but she has now made so many of them that I can see no nice reason why she doesn't take time time to learn ow to fix the rest of the problems.

Why is this still happeming after all this time?

Is Boleyn a slow learner who really genuinely doesn't understand that it's disruptive to create such a mess? Unlikely, because anyone unable to grasp that after all this time would be incapable of finding a keyboard.

Or is she simply so obsessed with upping her pages-I-created count, that she will do the bare minimum with each article, just enough to stop another big shitstorm erupting? Or does she actually enjoy crating articles which others have to fix?

I dunno which it is: maybe some of those, or maybe something else. But in nearly five years of editing wikipedia I have never before seen an editor who creates so many hundreds of similar stubs and is either unable or unwilling to try to get things right. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of editors are sloppy with categorisation - Charles Mathews springs to mind, I've learnt a lot and greatly enjoyed glancing at his new articles from time to time and adding or fixing cats on them. Others (like me) have never and will never create a succession box, properly formatted or not. I strongly suggest BHG and others unwatch this page and find something useful to do. DuncanHill (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: there's a difference. Charles Mathews adds substantive content on a range of topics; Boleyn creates formulaic stubs on a very narrow range of topics (MPs and MPs and MPs).

Formulaic stubs can be very useful, but if an editor is going to create squillions of very similar ones, it's quite reasonable to expect them to take the little bit of trouble to stop repeating the same basic errors ad infinitum.

If you want to start putting in several hours a day tidying up the mess Boleyn leaves behind, then I'll be happy to leave this page alone. But until you do that, then comments like the one I am replying to are just pointless sniping from the sidelines at the people who put a huge amount of work into cleaning up the mess. --00:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC

• Unindenting and returning to original question...: Hi Boleyn, I've just discovered that there's a template we can use for Rayment refs (and BHG could have pointed this out, as I'vejust found it by looking at her Nicholas Wood (MP)!). If you type {{Rayment-hc|h|4}} you get Leigh Rayment's Historical List of MPs – Constituencies beginning with "H" (part 4). It's been around since 2007, doesn't have any documentation, but looks very useful and will reduce the number of critical comments you get! Could you please start using this, now we've found it? Thanks. As well as being a quick way to produce a decent-looking reference it has another huge advantage: if the pages were ever to be moved, restructured, etc, it would be easier to retrieve and fix the thousands of broken links if they all used the template. (There are some other Rayment templates you could use for baronets etc too - see list at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Specific-source_templates&from=R ) PamD (talk) 07:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

PamD, I am perfectly happy to use your system. However, the stubs I create are now always referenced, contain enough information, are well-categorised and contain succession boxes. I think it's time for you, Tryde and BrownHairedGirl to back off. You are going through all my edits deliberately looking for errors, sometimes pouncing within minutes of an article being started. If you have to do that, why not do it once a week, when the articles have matured a little? As it is, it justs feels like harassment. Instead of being pleased that, for instance, Rochester now have all their post-1660 MPs with articles, you complain about little issues. Please now back off. Boleyn (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Tryde, but I prefer to use another template for baronets - I have changed to your version for MPs, but both ways are fine, and you shouldn't keep contacting me over your personal preference. Boleyn (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

BHG, I am not sloppy with categorisation, although I see it as one of the least important parts of an article - actually look at my recent articles. And after being taken to ANI three times by three different editors for harassing me, I really think you should unwatch this page, and not add your comments every time someone raises an issue with me.

Motmit, thanks again for your support and for expanding these useful stubs. I think if they actually looked at my back catalogue they'd see some great articles now exist that wouldn't if I hadn't started them, and you have taken dozens of them on to the next stage of being good articles rather than a stub. Boleyn (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Boleyn, drop the hyperbole: I don't respond "every time", just some of the time. I will "back off" when the problems stop. As you well know, those three ANI discussions saw repeated criticisms of what other editors described as your "crapflood", so I'm not going to refrain from pointing out that the problems are ongoing. If you choose to play a victim card yet again and attach a "harassment" label to the good faith efforts other editors to persuade you to slow down and take more care, that's your choice, but it doesn't fit any reasonable definition of the attempts to discuss the issues with you.

There are two very simple reason that I monitor your edits:

1. Many of the stubs you create are miscategorised or lack some obvious relevant categories. That makes them harder for other editors to find, so by fixing that, I increase the chances of expanding them. You deny that you are sloppy (tho I can produce a farm of diffs to counter that if you press the point) and say you regard categories as unimportant ... but if you don't want you edits tracked, then categories are one of the most signmificanmt ways in which the articles can be found.
2. The stubs you create still include a lot of other simple problems, such as unpiped links, badly formatted or inaccurate succession boxes, or basic errors of fact, which I fix.

When those problems stop recurring, I'll stop tracking your edits. There's not much sense in complaining about other editors "pouncing" on the stubs you create within minutes, when you spend only a few minutes in each of them, and leave them for others to fix.

It's also highly misleading to say that the articles wouldn't exist if you hadn't crated them. Several of the editors criticising your work routinely create a lot of articles in this area, and tidying up your rapid-fire stubs just means that their efforts goes into fixing yours rather than creating other articles. So your efforts are creating a form of displacement.

Once again, I'd far prefer not to be criticising you ... and the best way for you to bring that to an end would be for you to welcome other editors draw attention to a perceived a problem , so that you can try to fix it ... rather than than just moaning that you are being harassed. The problems exist, and your choice of how you respond to them determines how the discussions proceed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that categories are unimportant, that's twisting my words! There really is no reasoning with you, as you've made up your mind a long time ago. You sent me a message only about 5 days ago, saying 'Well done' about my recent stubs. PamD has now contacted me about bare URLs, I've agreed to change them and gone back through my recent articles changing them as well as not using them in the articles I've created today, so as far as I'm concerned I've done the right thing. You are harassing me, and this has been pointed out to you by several other editors, it's not just my personal opinion. Edit articles I've created all you want, but the repetitive vitriol on my Talk page needs to stop. Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl is spot on in her analysis, that Boleyn's editing is causing a form of displacement. So much effort is now put into cleaning up and expanding her articles on MPs in one specific English constituency, when our efforts should be used for much wider areas. Tryde (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Boleyn, I was trying to encourage you to keep on improving, not saying that all your recent creations are up to scratch -- I just said you had done well with one stub. This seems to be a flipside of the other problem: criticism on one point is misread by you as "harassment", and praise for one article is misread by you as "everything is fine". My mistake; I'll be a lot more cautious before praising you again.

So here's a few more specific problems.

1. You have created dozens of articles on Rochester MPs, many of them on MPs since the Act of Union 1800. As far as I can see, you added none of them to the relevant geographical category, Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for English constituencies. I have been busy adding that category, and not (as you falsely complain) coming here to moan at you about it ... and I hoped that you would notice that this was being done problem and start fixing it yourself, without feeing got-at. That hasn't happened, so please can you remember to add this category for English MPs since 1801? (similarly Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for Scottish constituencies, Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for Welsh constituencies etc)
2. Per MOS:DOB, endashes should be used for date ranges, both in vital dates and in succession boxes ... and spaces should be used around the dash when month etc is present. Only a small thing, but it helps a lot in readability.

I can pass more probs onto you once these are clear. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

As you have been taken to ANI by three other editors for bullying me, it is inappropriate for you to continue sending me messages. I will not respond to further messages from you. Boleyn (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Once again, specific problems are raised ... and instead of engaging with them to find a solution, you refuse discussion.

This is is the old pattern. By repeatedly refusing to discusing the issues, you ensure that they continue to be raised, and then -- het presto! -- you claim you are being bullied. That's a classic form of passive aggression.

BTW, please see WP:EDITSUMMARY. You use of edit summaries is near zero, which makes it unnecessarily difficult for other editors to see what your edits involve without opening up the diff. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

John L. Kerr

Howdy. I see you've merged my the above into John Kerr. Thanks once again for tidying up after me - as I think we've discussed before, I'm working through ambiguous links to intialised names, and am creating these pages largely to help myself keep track of who's who. Once quick question please; can I ask why John Lambert Kerr (the Oz cricketer) was removed during the merge? He seems notable to me, and was (from memory) linked as John L. Kerr in a few places before I tidied up, so must be known by that name in at least some sources even if he goes by Jack normally.

Cheers. - TB (talk) 08:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, TB. He's still on the page just under the article's title, Jack. I'll add John Lambert Kerr in brackets next to his entry now, to make it clearer. You're doing a great job helping users find people who would otherwise be really difficult to find, so keep up the good work. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks - I see Mr Kerr now. Only a few thousand more of these to go ;) - TB (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wombwell

I notice you created the article Sir George Grey Wombwell, 4th Baronet about a year ago. Another user recently noticed that many sources, perhaps the majority, give him a slightly different name, Sir George Orby Wombwell. Could you look at this and let us know if the article should be renamed? See this section on my talk page for more information. —Soap— 12:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I know very little about him, so I don't know which version is right, I'm afraid. I wouldn't have any objection to it being renamed, then with the current title kept as a redirect, no one should be too confused. Thanks for looking into this, best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

William Philip Honywood

Wrong parliament. Somehow only preceded by one MP when this was a two-seat constituency. Wrongly categorized in Category:Great Britain MP (1707-1800) stubs. One incomplete sentence ("He died..."). When is this going to stop? Tryde (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Corrections made, thanks for pointing them out. This was a recently created article, and I tend to triple check them at the end of the day, all together. Boleyn (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do you make these mistakes in the first place? Tryde (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Might it be better to create them in your user space and only move into main article space when you've checked them? Or at least not add them to your user page until they are no longer a work in progress? That way people's attention would not be drawn to them until you've de-bugged them. PamD (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do I make mistakes? That seems a strange question, why does anybody? I have been trying to be very careful, so I guess you'd just have to conclude that I'm stupid. PamD, thanks for your suggestion, I had double-checked this, but obviously not nearly well enough. I'll try a few in my sandbox. Boleyn (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do you make mistakes? Because you work too fast, and don't check things enough, and don't take on board the problems identified by other editors

PamD's sandbox idea is a good one. .Maybe you would like to move Thomas Knight (MP) to a sandbox until you have corrected it?

The current version is:

1. missing a ref
2. has impossible dates in the succession box (he wasn't MP for both places for the same 6-year period)
3. is missing categories
4. doesn't comply with MOS:DOB

You could also sandbox William Philip Honywood; the current version has problems 3 and 4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You have now fixed problems 1&2 with both Thomas Knight (MP) and William Philip Honywood, but problems 3 and 4 remain in both articles. Please can you fix these? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Dates for "with" MPs

Hi, I thought we'd established that it was correct to add dates for MPs who serve alongside the subject for part of their term, but at Thomas Herbert Maddock (last edited by you yesterday morning) and others there aren't any dates for them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Succession_Box_Standardization/Guidelines#Parliamentary_seats_.28s-par.29 is the nearest we have to an WP:MOS for these boxes, and says:

5. In constituencies which returned multiple members, all predecessors and successors should be listed, separated by a single <br />to break to the next line. Members of Parliament simultaneously representing the constituency should be listed after the name of the constituency in small type (use <small> before the words you want to appear in small type and </small> right after them). If one of the other members represented the constituency throughout the length of the subject's term, the date range may be omitted; otherwise, the years between which that member served should appear after the member's name.,

which does specify the dates.

Mind you, the previous paragraph says:

"4. Members of Parliament consecutively serving for a single constituency in multiple Parliaments should have the header of the later Parliament. Example: a Member of Parliament representing an English constituency from 1689 until 1710 should have that succession box placed under an s-par|gb header.,

but another editor split John Conyers (MP)'s service in two parlts into two separate succession boxes after I'd improvised a 2-parlt heading for one succession box. So these guidelines seem not to be universally followed. But I think it's helpful to add the dates of co-serving MPs, and easiest to do it while you're constructing the succession boxes rather than adding them later. PamD (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Dates for "with" MPs missing in one of your latest creations, Edward Master. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

William Jacob (Canterbury MP)

The reference to rayment in this article is wrong... Tryde (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing categories on MPs

Hi Boleyn

The stubs which you are creating are still missing a significant number of categories.

Just from the last 24 hours:

• Samuel Milles is missing Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for English constituencies and a categ for date of birth (I suggest either either Category:Year of birth missing or Category:1660s births)
• Thomas May (MP) is missing Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for English constituencies
• Thomas Best (MP) is missing Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for English constituencies and a categ for d.o.b. (I suggest either either Category:Year of birth missing or Category:1710s births)
• Richard Milles is missing Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for English constituencies

These are standard categories for articles on MPs. They may be easily overlooked by editors unfamiliar with the teritory, but since you have now created many hundreds of such stubs, you should by now be thoroughly be familiar with the categories used. Please can you take the small amount of time needed to categorise them properly?

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Similar issues with your most recent creations:

• James Creed
• Charles Robinson (MP)
• George Gipps (MP for Canterbury)

Please can you fix these problems, so that other editors do not have to continue to track you edits to remedy these simple deficiencies on the very short stubs you create? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

And with your further new stubs:

• William Lynch (diplomat)
• John Baker (MP for Canterbury)
• Samuel Elias Sawbridge
• George Watson (MP)
• Edward Taylor (MP for Canterbury)
• Richard Watson (MP)

None of these stubs are tagged as {{inuse}}. So why have you not added them to Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for English constituencies or Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for English constituencies? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I'm going to say it - BHG, you are a hypocrite, your disruptive change to the House of Commons page followed by your stalling when asked to fix the mess you had made put you in no position to demand that other editors do what you tell them to. DuncanHill (talk) 21:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, DH. BHG, sending me repeated messages saying that articles with several categories should also have another one is ridiculous. I will repeat to BHG: As you have been taken to ANI by three other editors for bullying me, it is inappropriate for you to continue sending me messages. Boleyn (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - couldn't resist this - borrowed from another talk page! I say we beat you WITH A SPOON!!! Motmit (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

@Duncanhill, nice try at muddying the water, but it doesn't work. I made a WP:BOLD dismabiguation, then there was a disagreement about whether to keep the dsb page or restore it as a redirect. The discusion was continuing when someone decided to revert. Maybe right, maybe wrong, but the issue was being discussed. That's the WP:BRD cycle.

Now, having dealt with the irrelevancies, let's get back to the issue we are discussing here. Does anyone disagree that those articles should be in the categories I have pointed out?

If not, why on earth does Boleyn not add the categories herself, rather than continuing to rely on othe editors to clean up after her? And why does she continue to indulge in attention-seeking victimhood by calling it "bullying" when she is asked to do so?

This nonsense has been going on for months now. Boleyn initilaly creating hundreds of abysmal, unreferenced sub-stubs, and it has taken mountains of discussion to push her relucantly one small step at a time to make even minmal efforts to create well-formed stubs. At each step along the way, Boleyn has whined about being "bullied", because at each step we have had the same pattern of her subs having the same simple problems again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again ... by the hundred.

And at each step, the pattern is the same: eventulaly, after endless howls of feeling bullied and persecuted, and refusing offers of help, Boleyn eventually starts a few mimimal steps to remedy some of the deficiencies. Look at Boleyn's archives, and look at the ANI discisions: it's mountains of the same stuff. Boleyn had to be dragged kicking and screaming to add references, dragged kicking and screaming to use the right stub tags, dragged kicking and screaming to not to miscategorise the stubs, dragged kicking and screaming to add refs which were not simply bare URLs, dragged kicking and screaming to add succession boxes, dragged kicking and screaming to format those successon boxes properly, and even dragged kicking and screaming to add some content beond what was in the list article on the constituency.

And so it goes on. I dunno what Duncanhill's angle is on this, but since I don't see DuncanHill tidying up after Boleyn, I'd be grateful if you'd have the good sense not to try to impede someone who is doing the tidyup, and not to encouarge Boleyn from continuing to assume that it is beneath her dignity to tidyup as she goes.

The pages which Boleyn is creating are just stubs. They have very little substnative content, and are derived from a single source. They have at last got to the point where they provide some sort of a useful basis for expansion, without having to be completely rewritten ... but they are not yet at the point where Boleyn's stubs can stand as she leaves them. Putting them in the correct set of categories helps to ensure that they will be found by readers and by editors who may want to expand them, and it woukd take only a few seconds extra work for her to do this at the time she creates them. There's no huge issue here of learning a masive chunk of the category system for each article, because all the hundreds of stubs she creates are on MPs.

If Boleyn really genuinely thinks that asking her to do this is "bullying", then she knows pefectly well where WP:ANI is. It'd be a lot less work for her to just categorise the stubs properly than to start another ANI fest, but it's her choice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

BHG, it's true that I don't follow all Boleyn's contributions as obsessively and nit-pickingly as you. I couldn't really be bothered to do that with anyone's edits. I didn't see you bothering to tidy up after yourself when you fucked up a dab page earlier - instead you denigrated the suggestions made by editors who were trying to help. Your grudging acknowledgement that Boleyn's contributions are improving shews just why you shouldn't be involving yourself with her - you offer only snide, negative comment, and even your "compliments" seem designed deliberately to denigrate and demoralise. You are not the right person to be trying ti help Boleyn improve. Take this page off your watchlist (you have already been explicitely asked by Boleyn not to post here), and stop following her contributions. Get on with your own edits, and when you see something you can fix, just fix it instead of demanding that someone else does it for you. DuncanHill (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

@Duncanhill, try reading before sniping. I disagreed with other editors on the solution re the dab page, and the consesnus was against me, which I accepted, but if you read the discussion you'll see that I committed myself to a big AWB job to fix the links.

As to fixing something that needs fixing myself, that's what I do all the time. But when I find myself repeatedly fixing the smae error made by the same editor, I usually drop them a note pointing out the prob ... and if it's something straightforward, the response is usualy "thanks, will do".

As you'll see above, at the start of this section, I pointed out the problem to Boleyn politely, with links and details of the solution. No respoinse at all.

Another list, and no response and no fix.

And so on ... until Boleyn responds with an accustaion of "bullying".

This is typical of Boleyn's pattern of response, not just to me, but anyone who asks her to ramedy a persistent problem: she stalls until she has been asked enough times to feel she can get away with being claims of "bullying" or "nitpicking" or whatever. If Boleyn doesn't like getting exasperated responses from editors who try to persade her to improve, the solution is in her hands: stop whining, and start trying to work collaboratively rather engaging in this endless cycle of ignoring issues and then

Boleyn's new stubs show up in the categories I monitor regular, so I'll encounter them whether or not I track her edits. I have fixed hundreds of her stubs, but it would be much better if she fixzed them herself.

Once again we have several screenfuls of meta-discussion spinng away from something which Boleyn coukd solve very easily. You say that I am not the right person to be asking her to improve ... but so far as I can see, you are doing absolutely nothing to either fix the problems yourself, or to try to persuade her to improve, just sniping at those who do. What are you trying to achieve by the drama? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Duncan here. Let's take a problem-solving approach. Yours has been tried and the results have been poor to negative. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Great, Charles, we agree! I have been trying to solve the proble, but I agree that it hasn't worked.

Since you agree that there is a problem, let's hear how you intend to solve it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong on any point here:

• Your aims, beyond conformity to content policies, extend to issues of format of succession boxes, categorisation and suchlike things;
• There is no actual basic written guideline setting out such things, but there could be;
• Conventionally editors here don't give others guidelines to follow, but in this case you at least feel it would be justified;
• Now we get to key points: there is no "parliamentary history" WikiProject to appeal to, though there is one dealing with the excellent UK constituency listings;
• But there is actually no reason that a WikiProject taking on the MP biography field should not exist: there is quite enough work for it;
• If there were such a WikiProject, then the guideline postulated above could belong to it;
• And it could also be a better forum for the issues that come up here, since all those interested would be on a proper footing with each other.

In short, at the cost of a few wikipages to create, you could adjourn these discussions to another venue. And if the WikiProject had an agreed and explicit guideline (and we're talking thousands of pages, aren't we - not overkill at all), then a request to conform that comes with a different status. (In policy-speak, we allow limited "ownership" to projects just because they take on a responsible role and can do good work in bringing up a whole area.)

Anyway, please respond on the basis that I'm trying to clarify a way forward that, as far as I know, hasn't been tried in this form. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

George Watson (MP)

Category for wrong parliament, and no "English constits" category. (Both now fixed)

These are two different kinds of problems, really: the first is sheer wrong information - I don't know whether you're using your sandbox yet, but you'd added this to your user page as an article you'd created and thus presumably were happy with. Something went wrong, again.

On the Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for English constituencies etc: while it's not compulsory for anyone creating a stub to add a full set of categories (hey, this is WP after all!), I have some sympathies with BHG's position here. Someone is going to add those categories some time, and having them makes your articles more likely to be found by, and thus useful to, more people. It would take you so much less time to add them while you're creating the article, as you do so many of these and have the appropriate set of categories to hand - you could stick them in your sandbox or another user subpage so you could copy and paste in seconds. As you're concentrating your article creation in one small area of WP, you're gradually building up expertise in different aspects of the articles - we've found the Rayment template, and ironed out succession boxes (Watson seems to have had an interesting political career), so perhaps perfecting categories comes next.

But accuracy in what you do add is more important, in my book, than completenesss. Good luck. PamD (talk) 08:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It was a pretty easy mistake to make - he took office in 1800, and so I picked a category that covered the year 1800. If you say I should have gone for 1801 onwards, that's fine. My issue with BHG about the categories is not that they're anything wrong with thinking @I wish she'd start adding that category', or even sending one message suggesting it, but sending several messages to someone, within days, complaining that they haven't, is simply not on. Whatever BHG is trying to achieve here, it isn't working. I am much more likely to respond well to a nicer approach (most people are!) from someone who hasn't been taken to ANI three times for harassing me, which is why I've taken on board your ideas more readily. However, I am only trying to create a framework for a good article, a stub with basic information. I'm not interested in building up expertise in this area, just creating a stub so there is something useful when people look the name up. If they end up being expanded in time, then that's great, but either way, at least there's something. It's not everyone's idea of the best use of editing time, but it's mine and I'm doing nothing wrong by creating these stubs.

To send me a message saying that on one of the articles I created you had to change a category is unnecessary; I have it on my watchlist so saw it. To say that I could also have added another category is even more unnecessary, when you know that this had already been suggested. Boleyn (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Boleyn - I am not sure why you list your new articles on the user page, but if you are only interested in maintaining a record of what you have done, then that is done automatically for you. You can go to "My Contributions", and at the bottom there is a box which includes "articles created". Click on that and you get your last 100. It is a shame people weigh in before I have had the chance to expand your articles, because if they waited there would be plenty more categories that they could add. They could also look at the linked articles that you did not create and they will have all the opportunity they want to find missing categories, missing boxes, missing references, links to towns instead of constituencies and fundamental errors of fact. Keep up the good work and don't get pushed into creating more spoons for yourself to be hit over the head with.Motmit (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Motmit, I did this to keep an eye on them, especially when a couple of hundred of them were speedily deleted by BHG, and she didn't send me warning notices. I could then check if the links went red. It's now a bit large to be useful to me. I also didn't know about the list under user contributions, it's great that I can monitor them from there, which I'd prefer to do. Thanks for your suggestion, Boleyn (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Some listing on your page might help me: if I go to the toolserver I get everything (dab pages included) and it's a bit slower and less easy to look over. It's up to you. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Lots of editors keep a list of the articles they have created on their userpages - I do too (they're in the history at the moment, but easily accessible). I've never been able to get the "articles created" link to work for my own account or anyone else's, and it's also nice to give other editors an idea of my interests and subjects covered. DuncanHill (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Boleyn, it's all very well complaining that I sent you multiple messages. But that's entirely within your control. If you responded to the first nmessage, or if you fixed the problem, thenm there would be no need for any further messages on the topic, other than "thanks, well done".

Now you do the same thing with PamD: she points out that a category was needed ... and you reply that the msg was un-needed because you already knew that. Wrong, Boleyn, wrong: the message was needed because you had not done it, and because you had explicitly denied that there was any need to do so.

If you know that you need to fix something in your stubs, why not just fix it rather than complainming when people remind you about it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)