Open main menu

Your GA nomination of The Pickwick Papers (1913 film)Edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Pickwick Papers (1913 film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Pickwick Papers (1913 film)Edit

The article The Pickwick Papers (1913 film) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Pickwick Papers (1913 film) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Pickwick Papers (1913 film)Edit

The article The Pickwick Papers (1913 film) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:The Pickwick Papers (1913 film) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Lord Bolingbroke. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

RE: Citing the OregonianEdit

Thank you for pointing that out. I'll make a note to be more specific in my citations. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

re: GNG vs NORGEdit

It is my view that local sources are rarely sufficient for anything. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Where do we draw the line? How small has a city - town - be, or the circulation of a given magazine, to not be sufficient? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
An argument against local sources is that at the bottom of the scale we will have stuff like high school or village newsletters, generally written by people who are can't be considered authoritative.
What is local? I draw the line like this: national, regional, local. Regional is ok and it means second highest level of administrative division (like state in US or voivodeship in Poland). Local is 'below' that, through exceptions can and should be made, if local sources are of higher quality, or can show significant circulation and impact (roughly, similar to regional sources, ex. some newspapers in big cities can be compared to regional ones for that country, if said city has population equal to a region, think NYC vs Wyoming, etc.). This can be discussed on case by case basis. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


I was trying to undo the test edit done by an IP right after your edit, and evidently clicked on the wrong row. My apologies. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: No worries! It's easy to misclick. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


Regarding your citation request at the Murder of Lisa Holm article, all such intra-EU transfers of prisoners back to their home countries for serving out their sentences are covered under this 2008 framework decision. Link. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ceannlann gorm: Thanks for the note. To clarify, my citation request wasn't about the details of the EU decision, but rather your claim that "this mechanism has become increasingly controversial in recent years, due at least in part to a hardening perception that criminals are often able to escape their due punishment because of judicial and/or political interference". This evaluation of the policy definitely needs a reference to a third-party source. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

George Latimer (New York politician)Edit

Hi - not sure if I am doing this correctly but I edited the wiki page for George Latimer because it contained political propaganda and not unbiased facts. and it was removed and they said I needed to explain it better my reasoning - does this help? CatherineAC23 (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


Thanks again for helping with coordinates on the Kenton Club draft page. I've struggled with coordinates before, hence why I haven't cleared out Category:Oregon articles missing geocoordinate data. Thank for your work on Portland/Oregon-related articles. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!Edit

Thank you so much for the barnstar! I've seen you around a lot on Portland pages, and it means a lot to me that you've noticed and appreciated my work. I do hope to get back on Wikipedia more sometime— hopefully I can find a life balance where I'm editing more frequently. I really do appreciate the community here, and thank you for making it special. Margalob (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Ima hop on the thank you bus and also say "Thank you!". Although for different reasons you seem like a pretty helpful person. Keep up the good work! --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Oregonship listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Oregonship. Since you had some involvement with the Oregonship redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


Okay I was looking for the name of the creator on here and was unsure if it is real, this seem to be the one time I didn't google something when I put up the hoax tag as I usually am very careful, go figure. Wgolf (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Another thing was the article read like a classic Wikipedia hoax article (which quite a few of those were popping up recently in this form), at first I thought it could be real, but then to me it sounded odd. It might be notable though (Though I'm sure someone would of tagged it for deletion), well thanks. Wgolf (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Wgolf: Mistakes happen, don't stress about it. Just make sure to Google the title of an article before you claim it is a hoax next time ;) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

csd tags and WP:BITEEdit

I'm a big fan of not biting as new editors are the future of the project.

On the other hand, Rajiv Dingra is typical paid placement. The fact that the paid contributor who wrote it did so before being blocked is a technical detail. The article is still one sided and covers a subject of doubtful notability. I declined because even though the article is junk I do try to follow the CSD closely. In this particular situation, I don't believe there's any harm in placing the tag. Are there other situations where sloppy placement of a deletion tag would be bitey? Sure.. UninvitedCompany 16:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Acuro Organics LimitedEdit

Hi There, i would like to know the concerned part of the proposed page for the speedy deletion, because of which you had objected its existence on Wikipedia. I am committed to do all rectifications or improvement to clarify the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubhh97 (talkcontribs) 06:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Shubhh97. In general, for a subject to qualify for a Wikipedia article, it must have received significant coverage in independent sources. When a subject has received such coverage, it is said to be "notable"—the specific notability guideline for companies is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). While I found the name of Acuro Organics Limited mentioned in a few sources—for example here and here—I did not find any in depth coverage that would establish the company's notability. The two sources currently in the article are not sufficient: the first is simply a listing of basic information about the company, and does not qualify as significant coverage as described in WP:CORPDEPTH; the second source is from Acuro's own website, and does not qualify as independent coverage as described in WP:ORGIND. Are you aware of any other sources that could establish Acuro's notability? If you don't add any additional sources, the article will probably be taken to Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. Best of luck in your efforts to improve the article. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion of Culture Agora pageEdit

Sir, I would like to kindly question the speedy deletion of the article on the platform Culture Agora. At 18:17 I received a constructive message requesting a review, from - (talk) in any case, to retrieve the full material. And only an hour later, you did the Speedy Deletion. I believe the article could have been improved, but I see no reason at all for its deletion. And in any case, I would like to retrieve the materials. Nullaparte (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Nullaparte (I'm the IP who wrote to you). The article was overly promotional and essay-like, so it's understandable that it was deleted. I would suggest to you to just start over from scratch by first collecting mentions in reliable secondary sources, and write your article in draftspace under the title Draft:Culture Agora. There wasn't much encyclopedic content there, so sometimes it's just good to start over. You could maybe find some similar article here on a program supported by the European Union and try to copy that article's structure. -- (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Nullaparte, I did not delete the article but rather nominated if for deletion. The actual deletion was performed by User:RHaworth as shown in the deletion log. I tagged your page under section G11 of Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, which is for pages that are exclusively promotional. Consider the following passages: "Agora's approach to language, both with a multilingual platform and with its automatic translation tools, offers a huge advantage to bridge the initial language barrier..."; "Agora has a fully transversal, multicounty, multi-discipline strategy"; and "Agora's content is as wide as the cultural and creative sector". This kind of marketing buzz-speak reads like it's from Agora's own website rather than an encyclopedia. Because the whole page was written like this (or contained content that was only tangentially relevant to Agora) I decided that G11 was an appropriate tag. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Another factor I considered was the lack of independent sources that discussed Culture Agora. Coverage in reliable, independent sources is necessary to establish a subject's notability, which is a prerequisite for it having an article on Wikipedia. If I had found independent news coverage of the platform, for instance, I could have used these sources to rewrite the article in a more neutral way. As it was, however, I didn't see much potential for the article to be rewritten in a manner suitable for Wikipedia. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


Hello there. Thanks for adding the missing coordinates. Nothing historical behind the name, it's from a track title on the album The Owl's Map. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I see. I think it rolls of the tongue nicely, in any case. :) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

August 2019Edit

  Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Europe Supported by Africa and America. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

I have started a discussion on the talk page. Please do not continue to edit war. Dartslilly (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dartslilly: Um, excuse me? You removed the {{William Blake}} template without an explanation so I restored it. Reverting (part of) an edit one time is not edit warring. If anyone is edit warring here, it's you: you reverted me twice and I reverted you once. I'd also advise you to read the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Zane GardnerEdit

  Resolved: OP blocked as sock – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

[1] ZanerG30 (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out to me ZanerG30. While this source verifies Gardner's existence, it in now way establishes his (your?) notability. People need to have received significant coverage in multiple sources before they can qualify for a Wikipedia article, and this source just mentions Gardner tangentially in a single sentence. Let me know if you have any questions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes what does that mean can I keep my page with out being deleted? ZanerG30 (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@ZanerG30: Whether or not the page will be deleted is up to one of Wikipedia's administrators, who will review my deletion request. In all likelihood, the page will be deleted because Gardner hasn't been covered extensively in independent sources. Please review Wikipedia's general notability guideline to understand the kind of coverage a topic must receive before it can be a Wikipedia article. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
[2] Look at this then I am to an artist ZanerG30 (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

──────────── I just wanted to say that I am it popular book ZanerG30 (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@ZanerG30: Please stop spamming my talk page. More importantly, stop trying to create an autobiography. I've left a message on your talk page explaining why this is discouraged on Wikipedia. If you continue with the attempts at self-promotion, you may wind up blocked from editing. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok I don’t want to be blocked and I am not spamming and I am trying not to write an autobiography all I like Wikipedia I am still trying to figure why can I be unblocked? ZanerG30 (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@ZanerG30: I must admit that I'm having some trouble understanding you. Let me just ask so I'm clear: Are you Zane Gardner? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes I am Zane Gardner I once was a martial artist and a basketball player now a painter ZanerG30 (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Now that we have that established, let me be clear: Stop trying to create an article about yourself (that is what I meant by creating an autobiography). Self-promotion of this kind is not tolerated on Wikipedia. If you would like to contribute constructively to other articles, we welcome that, but you should not be editing about yourself. Again, you will be blocked if you continue with the self-promotion. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer grantedEdit

Hi Lord Bolingbroke. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance. so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Chetsford (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


  The Original Barnstar
For being an all-around great editor Chetsford (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much Chetsford! It's an honor that my first barnstar would come from you. Also, congratulations on your successful RfA! – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Review of Draft:Enkay OgborucheEdit

Hello Lord Bolingbroke. I left you a message on my talk page, you missed it. Thanks for your corrections. I have made adjustments. Kindly review the page again for me. Thank you! ( Ogeode (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ogeode. Sorry that it's taken me so long to get back to you. I'll leave some more feedback at the the original thread on your talk page. For future reference, to link to a Wikipedia page you should enclose it in double brackets like so: [[Draft:Enkay Ogboruche]]. I've done so in the header of this thread as an example. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: Fernanda YoungEdit

Hi. About Fernanda Young, well, no, it wasn't a direct translation, or at least it wasn't supposed to be. I made the page making a point about only adding properly-sourced information, but now I see that an user, Jvalienforce (talk) basically copy-pasted a translation from the Portuguese Wikipedia page (and not a good one, given the many edits from other users having to correct glaring translation mistakes), including adding the many unsourced claims from the Portuguese Wikipedia article.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@EdgarCabreraFariña: Thanks for clarifying; I should have looked looked at the article history more carefully. Your original version looks good. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@Lord Bolingbroke: No problem; I thought at first that I missed something, it can happen.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of AlakkuuEdit


I spoke with Tone about the deletion of Alakkuu after you it was discussed for quite a while. He/she mentioned that I talk to you because I genuinely believe I had valid arguments that I hope can be considered.

After reading "other stuff exists", it seems that

1) TedX is widely used on Wiki as a notable resource. Shouldn't that be accepted here?

2) I've come across several articles that have the subject in it via interview style being used as notable sources, even though they don't carry the same weight as Forbes. I'm confused as to why this rule of acceptance doesn't apply here

3) He has work published on (which is used as a notable reference on Wiki as well on different articles)

4) After scrubbing the subject's social media, his work will be studied in an English Class this fall in Minneapolis, MN. He is also the son of famous Somali intellectual Abdirahman Yabarow who seems to have his own article on Wiki. Would these be helpful?

For your convenience, below were my initial comments:

Here's a podcast available on OwlTail that labels Alakkuu and Boonaa Mohammed as "two well respected, solidified poets of our generation" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yortay (talk • contribs) 16:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Boonaa Mohammed has 1 of 3 references of notability; one of which is a TedX talk. Why isn't Alakkuu's TedX talk given the same weight in notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yortay (talk • contribs) 15:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Understandable that the award from CBC was considered, but Alakkuu is a best selling African poet, and I don't see why that isn't being considered. Also, an accepted article pertaining to [Boonaa Mohammed]] ( was very similar to the Forbes article of Alakkuu, but from a much less notable source (bio and answers from the subject himself). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yortay (talk • contribs) 19:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Noticed that references produced by the subject him/herself are accepted , e.g. Nayyirah Waheed wrote and this was used as a viable reference on this subject's page. Due to this, I'd like to bring into the discussion an article written by the subject that was published on a notable African News platform - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yortay (talk • contribs) 19:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you again and my apologies for the long message — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yortay (talkcontribs) 19:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Yortay. Thanks for reaching out to me. There are two preliminary things I would like to address. First, do you have a connection to Alakkuu in some way? Were you paid to create his article? Second, please remember to sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) and indent them using colons (:) when replying to a previous comment. See the other threads on this page for examples of how to indent.
Alright, let me address your points in order:
1) The reason Alakkuu's TedX talk does not establish his notability is because it is not an independent source. We need sources about Alakkuu, not by Alakkuu, to show that he is notable.
2) Interviews with the subject of an article are not considered independent sources. While it's perfectly fine to cite interviews, the interviews you're referring to are likely not "notable sources", as you call them. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimitri Livas for an example of a deletion discussion where interviews with the subject of the article were not considered to establish his notability.
3) I'm not sure how this is relevant. Simply getting published somewhere is not an indication of notability; it's the response to what's published (significant critical attention, widespread citations, etc.) that would indicate an author's notability, as described at WP:NAUTHOR.
4) If Alakkuu's work was being widely studied in academic institutions, that would indeed be an indication that he meets WP:NAUTHOR. However, being studied in a single class (at what school, btw?) is not enough to establish his notability. Regarding Alakkuu's connection to Abdirahman Yabarow, please see WP:NOTINHERITED; having notable relatives is not an accepted reason for why someone should have a Wikipedia article.
Hopefully this explanation was helpful to you. As Tone mentioned, this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Although there is consensus that Alakkuu is not yet notable, he may become so at a later date. The best course of action is probably to wait and reevaluate Alakku's notability if/when he receives more attention from independent sources. Let me know if you have any questions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi LB - thanks for the prompt reply. I do not have any connection to the subject, nor was I paid to write this article. All of your explanations make sense. The only question I had was: regarding the other articles that use TedX as notable resources, is that something that is used as a secondary, lesser resource I guess? And not something used as a primary resource of notability? Do you have any advice for me in the future on what to look for most when trying to create an article, that you think would be helpful? I can see how this one is too soon. Thanks again Yortay (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer grantedEdit

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Chetsford (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019Edit

Hello Lord Bolingbroke,


Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.


A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


I nominated an article that you worked on for DYK here - Template:Did you know nominations/Jan Fortune (writer). SL93 (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@SL93: Thanks for the note, and for the improvements you've made to the article. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Bissinger Wool Pullery/Oregon ProjectEdit

Thank you very much for you attention to the Bissinger Wool Pullery article.Hu Nhu (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the article Hu Nhu. I'm glad to help out with some copy editing. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Lord Bolingbroke:I appreciate your offer to copy edit. Mostly, I am able to compose English well. I now see the sentence with which I began this section indicates otherwise. My use of the pronoun, you, was accidental, and I fully understand I should have used the possessive pronoun, your. Even now, as I review the article, I still see where I perhaps can revise to improve the prose. However, next, I am now going to create another article—a biography—and hope to complete it within a few days.Hu Nhu (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Jan Fortune (writer)Edit

 On 24 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jan Fortune (writer), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that American writer Jan Fortune was born in the back of a post office in Wellington, Texas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jan Fortune (writer). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jan Fortune (writer)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Lord Bolingbroke".