Talk:Haig Gudenian

reverted edit
I came to this article because references 31, 32, and 33 are showing error messages. The messages are present because is a redirect to  and that template requires journal. So I came here to fix those templates; in this case, I converted all three to because  is specifically for citing articles in scholarly or academic journals. While here, I fixed other stuff to which Editor Carlstak objects.

At this edit, Editor Carlstak reverted my edit. Apparently the complaint is that I left three citations showing error messages. Yes, I did that.

Here are the three templates as I found them (apparently unchanged since the time of this article's creation): All three: I followed each of the above urls to see if I could find proper titles because sometimes editors have clipped the article which makes it available for others to read: I do not have or want access to Newspapers.com. Given the lack of anything tangible at the Newspapers.org urls that any reader can see, I could not fully fix these broken citations. I could fix them 'mostly'. Leaving out the titles so that Module:Citation/CS1 will emit the appropriate error message is usually sufficient to prompt interested editors into fixing them. Alas, not so this time; Editor Carlstak, it appears, chose to knee-jerk-revert and chastise me via edit summary rather than to actually look at the citations showing errors, recognize that they do not link to proper clippings and never had proper titles. Without proper titles, readers cannot easily verify the claims in the en.wiki article which is the purpose of the citations in the first place.
 * cite an unnamed newspaper article at Newspapers.com
 * use instead of ; see the guidance at
 * misuse title to hold the name of the newspaper which should go in newspaper
 * omit the title of the cited article which should go in title
 * use website instead of via
 * 1) has a clipping with the incipit: "Associate Justice Hitz yesterday...[granted a divorce to Roy S. Ashtop]"; neither Hitz nor Ashtop is mentioned in the Gudenian article; I expected a clipping about a Washington DC performance (link)
 * 2) does not have a clipping (link)
 * 3) has a clipping with the title: "Scarab Club Members To Have Music Hour"; none of the musicians named in the clipping (Netzorg, Sturm, Wittman, Gorner, Luconi) are mentioned in the Gudenian article; neither Gudenian nor "For the Relief of Ten Thousand Armenian Wanderers" is mentioned in the clipping (link)

My edit should be restored and Editor Carlstak or some other interested editor should fix the broken citations with proper titles and urls to appropriate clippings.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I chastised you? You are overreacting. My reverting edit summary said, "...apparently editor didn't notice the missing title parameters and the introduction of raw links to the websites instead, not an improvement." I can't see how you should take that as chastising. Please calm down. Obviously I made these errors when I created the article and didn't notice later. Thanks for pointing them out; I'm on siesta now, will track down the cited articles this evening and fix them, then you may do what you like. Carlstak (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to wait for you. It is easier for both of us if I restore the article to this version because then I don't have to redo all of the individual fixes and all that you need do (if it is possible) is simply supply correct values for title and url in references 13, 35, and 36.
 * I am calm and I did not overreact. You should not tell me how I perceive your edit summary.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The hell you didn't. No one "chastised" you. Get over yourself. Carlstak (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The hell you didn't. No one "chastised" you. Get over yourself. Carlstak (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)