User talk:Clarityfiend/2021

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

DISCRIMINATION
Hello @Clarityfiend,

I'm contacting you because @Martin Urbanec recently declined my Out of Bounds (2019 film) submission. I would like to file a complaint in regards to his unacceptable actions. There is no reason why I should have to defend my article. What's quite disturbing is his reasoning behind declining it: 1) at first, i saw the number of references, and thought this has already improved; however, on second sight, I noticed 2) The Philadelphia Tribune has a short paragraph presumably written by their staff, and the majority of the article is marked as "Statement from the director/writer", which makes me think it's not fully independent on the subject, 3) Memphis Flyer doesn't count at all and 4) Hip Hop Weekly doesn't sound like a reliable source, with editorial review etc. He also agreed with your previous statement that my article seems to be pursued to promote, not knowing that you and I had a discussion disproving the aforementioned thought. What's even more alarming is the rate at which my article was reviewed. As you know, it can take months for an article to be queued for review, but in my case it only took "hours" after I submitted it over a year after your reviewal. This leads me to believe not only has my article been flagged, but there is an opposition to intentionally decline it because it is a black film. I've been extremely patient in submitting my review because I couldn't find the supportive articles needed as per your instructions. So, when I submitted it last month after over a year of researching, I knew it would take months to be approved and was in no hurry. That's why I didn't contact you to let you know my article had greatly improved. My first thought was to message you, but I decided to wait the 3-4 months with over 3,000 articles in front of mine.

I believe my article has been wrongfully targeted and discriminated against. @Martin Urbanec comments were not fair and impartial in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. Moreover, he has displayed blatant disrespect to known Wikipedia approved publications and has impeached and indicted my references in an attempt to validate his declining of my article and to smear The Philadelphia Tribune, which is the oldest continuously run African-American newspaper in the US. He attempted to discredit the newspaper’s integrity for impartiality by saying, "The Philadelphia Tribune has a short paragraph presumably written by their staff, and the majority of the article is marked as "Statement from the director/writer", which makes me think it's not fully independent on the subject." This is clearly his opinion and not a fact. Even you stated an article with only a sentence can be approved if it has supportive references. But clearly @Martin Urbanec has an issue with an article written by a newspaper that has been publishing articles for over 136 years. Considering that we have had 4 years of fake news and lambasting the media, it is outrageous to pick the one black newspaper to tie in with a baseless opinion. If these pages are not reputable, why do they have Wikipedia pages? You stated Memphis Flyer "wasn't nearly enough," but he disregards your statement and says, Memphis Flyer doesn't count at all." He doesn't have the right to eliminate any of my sources.

He also discredits Hip Hop Weekly as an incapable editorial and not "a reliable source, with editorial review etc.," when in fact it is a publication that reviews films that contain hip hop. They even state that in their description. As a reviewer he should know hip hop is a culture and not just a genre of music. With all of that said, one has to conclude there’s a bullseye on this article in an attempt to discriminatory block it. With the statement he left on my article there is no way my article will receive approval from proper and fair judging, so your assistance is really needed.Nineminutesuntil (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Your revert of my category
I saw that you reverted one of my categorizations on the grounds that the article was a post-war film and thus unsuitable to contain Category:1950s war drama films. However, those categories are genre-related categories, and exist for more than just films made during WWII. For example, we also have Category:1920s war films as a category. Thank you for your time. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * What? A war film category, by definition, is set in a war. Every direct entry in Category:1920s war films is explicitly called a war film and/or names a war as a setting, with the possible exception of The Nonentity. Even that one is categorized as a British war film. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * After investigating, I totally understand your rationale now. Sorry. When categorizing the article, I was only looking at the genre provided in the first sentence. You are totally right now that I have looked at the plot summary. I also went ahead and changed the genre in the introductory sentence. Thanks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that error in the first line. One step forward. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Dunkirk
If length of plot is a problem, leave it to me and I will reduce it later today. No Great Shaker (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That's only a symptom of the underlying problem. Details like sending two divisions to prop up the Belgians is not really germane. The focus of the film is on a handful of people, not the battle itself. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was in the original version. I was temporarily retaining it until I had time to do more work and decide what to keep and what to reject. The real problem was not the relevance of certain statements but their accuracy. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

AFD issue
I think you meant to create AFDs for both John C. Truong and Danny Lam Nguyen, but it looks like you only did so for the latter. Marquardtika (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Cal disambig
Although there are several ways of interpreting your username, I interpret it to mean you are a fiend for clarity. If so, can you tell me why you are against headers being sorted alphabetically? Isn't it more neutral and impartial, more fair, to have them sorted that way? What's the alternative? The alternative is having an editor decide which topics ought to come first. That means lots of subjectivity, personal judgment, and opinion. It's tantamount to telling readers what to think, which runs counter to everything Wikipedia stands for. No reference book tells people what to think. It gives them facts. Most reference books organize material in impartial, noncontroversial ways, such as alphabetical or chronological. In a practical sense this also avoids conflict and debate. We can get more done, avoid conflict and debate, if we organize information in neutral ways. Can you tell me why you are against headers being sorted alphabetically? You really think the way Cal is organized now makes it easier to find information? Or is there some reason you are attached to this order: People, Places, then a mishmash? You must have reasons for your edits, otherwise you wouldn't be an editor. It's our job to discuss those reasons. Vmavanti (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Vmavanti (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * One issue at a time. Also, this should be discussed on the dab page talk page, not here. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter where we talk so long as we talk. But there is in fact a discussion, of some kind, on the dab talk page.

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Royal Air Force reconnaissance units


A tag has been placed on Category:Royal Air Force reconnaissance units requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Charles Sweeny
Hello! Your submission of Charles Sweeny at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  Ergo Sum  17:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Rejection of John souder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Souder

I am failing to understand how Souder is not notable enough. There are a multitude of articles covering his life and work, he is a well-published artist whose artwork is still sold and collected today (by people such as jay leno), he was the recipient of multiple community awards, there is a memorial in his name, his death was formally honored by a government body. How do these things not pass the "notability" guideline..? I have 20+ citations in the article that confirm all of these things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xander flex (talk • contribs) 05:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, there are a lot of repeated "references", e.g. "A labour of love" four times, "Car festival poster artist John Souder dies" and "Festival poster artist John Souder dies" three times apiece, and those are local media pieces. In fact, the "Labor of Love" article specifically describes him as a "local artist". Most of the rest of the references are useless for establishing notability, as they aren't about him specifically. Find a Grave and ancestry.com are unreliable, being WP:USERGENERATED. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Sweeny
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Dean Jagger
Hi Clarityfiend. Perhaps you can help out at WP:THQ since you've seem to come across a similar question about this before at Talk:Dean Jagger. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, can you help me out?
Hi Clarityfiend, I’m HelenDegenerate, a new user here. Last night I was exploring the features of Wikipedia and discovered an article with some serious problems: R. Mahendran. It was written like an advertisement for a vanilla-processing business, and I decided to get involved (the Biography section is the worst part). I was wondering if you could help me out by having a look at the article and seeing what you can do to reduce the amount of promotional language used— rewording it. I would be honoured if you would take the time to help me improve this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelenDegenerate (talk • contribs) 19:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is salvageable. I've nominated it for deletion at Articles for deletion/R. Mahendran. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Stamford
Could you explain please why you have reverted the edit to add Stamford Bridge to the Stamford disambiguation page. An important historic battle is at least as important as a football stadium with the same name that is referenced immediately below, so either both or neither should appear. Thank you. Hyperman 42 (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I missed the stadium. It's gone per WP:PTM. The link in See also is sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making things consistent. I see Stamford Brook and Stamford Canal are also included on that page (not sure when they were added), and seem to me equally to breach WP:PTM. Should they also be moved to See also? Hyperman 42 (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I consider those to be like rivers, e.g. the Nile, the Mississippi. Ferry Cross the [River] Mersey anyone? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Lists of Ancient Roman governors for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lists of Ancient Roman governors is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Avilich (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

John T. Newton is now eligible for DYK
Based on the fivefold-plus increase in content over the past seven days, John T. Newton is now eligible for nomination for WP:DYK. I'm all out of hats for that project, but I would support a nomination if you would like to put one forward. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * If for some reason I am on the wrong side of you, I'd like to know why. If I have done something wrong, I can correct myself. Cheers! BD2412  T 17:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Nothing like that. It's just that he's still under consideration for deletion. Also, he's not all that interesting; hard to find a really interesting hook. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would go with the fact that he captained the first transatlantic steamship crossing, and was then court-martialed for the accidental burning of the ship. The AfD is taking forever to close, which is annoying, but I think that a DYK proposed during the AfD would just have consideration postponed until the AfD did in fact close. It's hard to see it ending negatively at this point. BD2412  T 20:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have a hook: "... that after commanding the Missouri on the first steam-powered crossing of the Atlantic, Captain John T. Newton was court-martialed after a crewman accidentally started a fire that destroyed the ship? However, I'm not too happy about the sources for the court-martial - two offline newspaper articles, but have been unable to find anything better. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Offline" is a relative term these days. They are available on Newspapers.com, to which Wikipedians can apply for free access. I would think some DYK reviewers have that access. BD2412  T 00:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * They're still just newspaper articles, one for the court-martial and one for the remittance. That's pretty weak. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I have to admit that a fairly diligent search turned up nothing more except this snippet in a magazine, which notes the fact of the court-martial and the date, but not the reason or the outcome. BD2412  T 16:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for butting in, but I have clipped two articles from newspapers.com which may help, one for the remittance and one directly detailing the court martial. These seem to correspond to the offline references already listed. BusterD (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've located this book, which while self published does list sources in the bibliography. BusterD (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Good enough. He's been nominated. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of John T. Newton
Hi Clarityfiend, I've reviewed your DYK nomination for John T. Newton. Great work on the article. I do love a rescue job. I have some questions outstanding, mostly about the sourcing for "first steam-powered crossing of the Atlantic" from the hook. If you could clear that up and ping me I'll be very happy to see this pass. CC &rsaquo;  Mortee  talk 23:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Corrected and shortened hook. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Polecat
Hello. Regarding this edit. I believe the hatnote was there because skunks are often called "polecats" is some regions of the U.S.

More precisely, the exact reason given when the hatnote was placed, can be found here. (and it still is)

You may or may not be aware of all this, I just couldn't tell from your edit summary. Thanks. All the best! --DB1729 (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The distinguish template was incorrectly applied and confusing. The skunk is already mentioned in the body of the article, and I also added it to Polecat (disambiguation). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Virvum Declined?
Hi there, thanks for reviewing the page; you say "Fails WP:BAND", but I can't see how it does not match the criteria listed there. Please explain so I can improve the draft and resubmit?
 * What part of WP:BAND does it satisfy? Not a single one of the dozen criteria, as far as I can see. Have they charted? Did their only album get certified gold? Are any of the members notable in their own right? Are they signed to a major label? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Clarityfiend, thanks for your fast reply. With all the sources/articles added, how does it not match criteria 1. or 4.? Really hope to finally get this page approved, so thanks in advance for your help.


 * Reference 1: From their label, so not neutral. 2: A short listing, not substantial coverage. 3: A short, not particularly enthusiastic review of their first album by a site of uncertain notability. 4: Only a list of tour stops. 5: An announcement. 6 and 7: More tour itineraries. Of these, only the third is anywhere close to being an acceptable source. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Clarityfiend, you can literally question the notability of any online magazine in the metal music genre. Not every magazine is the "rolling stone", but the listed Metalinjection (USA), Rockhard (DE), Stormbringer (AT) are definitely some of the most notable in the genre. So I'm not sure how eg. a page like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Creation is approved (very similar sources, also a lot from the label, etc), but this one isn't. What am I missing?
 * You're missing the main point. There is no substantial, independent coverage except for the review. Beyond Creation satisfies NBAND #8: it was nominated for a Juno. If it didn't have that, it would have been a good candidate for deletion. The sources are unacceptable. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. So, I added multiple more independent album and show reviews, since these seem to be the only ones you classify as "substantial". Good to resubmit, or still lacking of something?
 * No harm in trying. Hopefully someone with more knowledge of metal will review it. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * PS In future, you should add four tildes ("~") after your comments. It identifies you and the time: see WP:Signatures. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for John T. Newton
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

reject vs. decline
this first time review being rejected seems unduly harsh. It doesn't meet the normal criteria for immediate rejection (ie. very clearly never going to be notable/made up) so I'm curious about your reasoning. YODADICAE👽 21:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Her claim to notability clearly falls into the category of WP:ONEEVENT. What is going to change that? With over 5K drafts to review, simply rehashing this later is a waste of time. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Substantiation of notability for Draft:Roger_Bansemer
Hello Clarityfiend, Draft:Roger_Bansemer was flagged with "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article". Today if you search "Roger Bansemer" in Google, a knowledge panel on the right side appears with a drawn image of Roger Bansemer and an incorrect label of "Actor" along with correct biographical data. Curious as to why the information was incorrect I realized there is no WIKI article (which would take search precidence over the lesser sources that produced the panel). So I've set upon the goal of getting a WIKI article published on Roger Bansemer. I then noticed this draft someone has created and the declined status, so the goal is to understand what will meet the bar (where the gap is). I've not followed this process before so any helpful suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Why I think this deserves to become an article is probably best substantiated by his PBS series Painting and Travel with Roger and Sarah Bansemer, which is already a WIKI article in the same way you have another PBS painting personality and show Bob Ross and The Joy of Painting. So in theory we have the exact same thing.

Thanks,

-Jeff (Jrg1000 (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC))


 * What is lacking is "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Look at Bob Ross's reference section: lots there, including a New York Times obituary. Now compare that to Bansemer's. The Saint Augustine Record article is acceptable. The only other entry is from a website of unknown reliability. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the help. The most noteworthy and credible sources are from individuals in book forewards. Bansemer published books with forewards by reputable persons such as James_A._Michener and James_Cameron. Are these primary references because they are in Roger Bansemer's own books, or are they secondary because Bansemer did not say these words?  I have found the books also referenced indirectly by James A. Michener himself in |Letter dated February 26, 1993 from James A. Michener to Robert Vavra and Roger Bansemer.  "You must bring with you a fairly wide selection of your published books to prove that you actually are professional writers-artists-photographers. Normally we do not stree a visitor's peddling his books to the students, but in the case of you gifted free-lance gentlemen, we'll look the  other way."  Also in 2001 | Teaching with James Michener seems to connect the dots between the foreward and the 1993 comments by Michener himse.f "The last time I saw James Michener, he was leaving our final class to drive to North Carolina with a writer named Roger Bansemer. Bansemer, an artist and balloonist, as well as a writer, was planning a book, Mountains in the Mist, about the people and landscape of the Great Smoky Mountains.".  Bansemer's book is Mountains in the Mist: Impressions of the Great Smokies.  So my quandry is will forewards from within books stand as secondary sources?  I am not a lawywer though it would seem illegal and obviously senseless to publish any book with a fabricated foreward, so a foreword I would think should be substansive enough as secondary?
 * I'm inclined to view forewords as not independent. The writer is expected to say nice things about the author. Plus there's usually little WP:verifiability value, i.e. compliments, not facts. In all my years here, I've yet to see a foreword used as a reference. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree. Book forwards may be useful for some tidbit of uncontroversial information, but can not stand as evidence of notability. Truly notable people get coverage in better sources than that. BD2412  T 05:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree with Clarityfiend and BD2412. Your time would be much better spent improving Painting and Travel with Roger and Sarah Bansemer, an article with only one reference. That reference is mediocre, and I am being kind. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I re-submitted Draft:Roger_Bansemer tonight after adding content and references. I hope this will make the grade. If not, I'm open to suggestions. It doesn't look finished and I am looking for an image to go with the info box. Jrg1000 (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

A hasty and misdirected change
Clarityfiend recently renamed "Gramps" page to "Gramps (software)" modified the redirect to Grandparent.

Although a rename may be appropriate (since the term 'Gramps' is more commonly used to refer to a Grandfather (or old man) in the English language than to the open source software tool), the redirect destination change was premature.

The Gramps page redirect modification created ambiguity, was incomplete, broke well over 100 Wikipedia article internal references] and, in addition, broke external website references. Moreover, a proper disambiguation is more appropriate rather than a blind redirect.

Obvious breakages:
It expanded the disambiguation selections at the beginning of the "Grandparent" page to "Several terms redirect here. For other uses, see Granddad (disambiguation), Grandfather (disambiguation), Grandmother (disambiguation), Grandma (disambiguation), Grandpa (disambiguation) and Gramps (disambiguation)."
 * Gramps is only incorrectly neutered to Grandparent. Instead, it is a gender-specific monosyllabic endearment for grandpa/grandfather. (Supports an indeterminate number generations of removal: i.e., equally applicable to an extant great-grandfather.) "Grams" is the gender-specific variant for grandma/grandmother. It is also used pejoratively to refer an 'old' man or a man out-of-step with current trends.
 * The Talk page for the original "Gramps" redirect still redirects to the "Gramps (software)" Talk
 * The Grandparent page as the destination for the redirect created additional ambiguity.
 * A premature redirect destination change interferes with crawl error handling and prevents REDIRECT error reports from being resolved by automation.
 * A casual user's normal "unexpected redirect" resolution is precluded. (The usual workflow is to: click the link in the "(Redirected from ____)" prepended notice to find the moved location of a recently updated page. The edited redirect page omits the new location of the old page.

Possible solutions:
BAMaustin (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The REDIRECT page should/could have the Gramps (disambiguation) contents... with proposal to convert to a REDIRECT at a specific future date. This would be compatible with preferences that prevent redirects after following external links.
 * The redirect created by the rename needs to be left intact for 30-90 days to allow external websites to run redirect reports. With accurate redirect targets, they will be more able to easily locate the new target URL resolve their internal links.

Reply

 * "Grandfather", "Grandpa", "Grandmother", "Grandma", etc. all redirect to Grandparent, so I don't understand your gender-specific objection.
 * I've never seen this "prepended notice" before on any redirect or documentation I've ever encountered. Where's it discussed?
 * "Well over 100" breakages is probably an overestimate. I haven't looked too closely, but most of those are likely due to a single template being reused. However, I should have fixed the legitimate ones. It slipped my mind (old age creeping in?). I will hold off on this if you plan to raise this issue at WP:RFD.
 * I'm not sure what you mean by external link damage. Could you explain? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Reply
from MediaWiki's documentation: Viewing a redirect "After making a redirect at a page, you can no longer get to that page by using its name or by any link using that name. However, near the top of the destination page, a notice that you have been forwarded appears, with the source pagename as an active link to ..." BAMaustin (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My objection to the 'Grandparent' is somewhat comparable to the argument that "all Roses might be flowers but not all flowers are roses". However, I concede that the objection might be specious since the term 'Grandfather' does not currently have enough uniqueness to justify a separate article.
 * prepended notice is not techobabble nor reference to a feature name. It is simply fully descriptive english for a functionality not specifically named in the MediaWiki docs. 'Prepend' is to "insert before" as 'append' is to "insert following".  In this case it prepends the autotext with the linked redirect notice before the body with the article content... but after the standard Header based on the article title.
 * "Well over 100" breakages was entirely accurate. The exact count was 167 before I updated the 3 Templates in the list. Updating the templates eliminated about 35. I have reduced the linkrot to 107 after a couple hours of edits fixing those templates and the most critical pages. (General information pages on Genealogy, programming examples, formats and software were the first targets. The cross-references from competitive product pages are lower priority.)
 * External link damage refers to 20 years of internet pages built pointing to the "Gramps" wikipedia article URL. Those now have artificially accelerated linkrot. This includes scholarly article references that no longer work. This includes links inserted into footnotes and endnotes of college level genealogy projects. Google Scholar lists many documents linking to the Wikipedia page.

Reply 2

 * If we had to worry about how a page move would affect links from the "outside", then none would ever be made. WP:Moving a page does not raise this concern, nor should it IMO.
 * It's still no clear to me what the "prepend" issue is. Again, it's not mentioned at all in the moving a page documentation.
 * As far as I can see, my only real fault is forgetting to update the links to the original page.
 * Finally, if you want to contest this move, you need to take it to RFD. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the move is fine, though perhaps "Gramps" should be a disambiguation page. The linkrot concern is a non-issue. Page moves have been a thing since the beginning of Wikipedia. The goal is to have things at their most appropriate titles, not to preserve the content choices of other website. BD2412  T 06:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Gramps (disambiguation) doesn't have any entries that can take down an ornery old geezer. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Courtne Smith: Citing Update
Hi there, as requested I cited more relevant and newer sources for Courtne Smith since my initial entry. She's received quite a few more press pieces since I first started it and that may be the reason it felt like there aren't many relevant ones. Thanks!

Disambiguation link notification for June 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Pied Piper (1942 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Rowland.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Ivan R. Gates
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Spencer Tracy
Would you kindly restore the WP:WESTERNS banner at Talk:Spencer Tracy? The whole point of placing project banners on article talk pages is, to quote the relevant heading: "This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects". Spencer Tracy was the star of Broken Lance and Bad Day at Black Rock, so he is definitely "of interest" to the Westerns project. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Discussion opened at Wikiproject Westerns. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
 Hello :

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a  month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is currently a backlog of over articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

In the music world, notability is also who you've played with professionally
Hello. I find the rule about articles and notability fails as a criterion for compelling contributions. If rules are rules, fine, there are thousands of pages about musicians with no references at all, just descriptive text and claims. If those claims are true, they should be there. Apparently, someone at Wikipedia thought so. I guess editors weren't checking as much back in the day.

I think it's unfortunate that someone who's worked with some of the biggest names in jazz can't have a page published. I would have been happy to be able to show Art his page. He's well-known among the great players.

Sincerely,

Art's brother


 * This isn't the music world. WP:NOTINHERITED is pretty clear about that. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand that passage. The references given do prove that he's played with those people. However, I don't agree with that rule, as much as I agree with the idea that things need to be provable. It seems to me there are many aricles that have a box saying they need more confirmation. For example,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Verbeke

There's one significant print reference there.

Patrick is a friend, and deserves to be there, but his page isn't justified by the notability rule requiring print references.


 * You're right, in one respect at least. I've nominated Verbeke for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. It means that the rule is wrong in that these are people who are widely known and respected, and deserve to have their information visible. John Klemmer is another, he's a major jazz saxophonist that probably didn't have much written about him, yet anyone in the jazz world would know that name and wonder if he's still alive. I did, and he is. His page has about two references and the box that asks for more complete references. That's what Patrick's and Art's page should have. I'm sorry to hear you editors think that such rules should be followed. I feel they should be rethought. Music is an art and valorous artists and composters deserve to have a page.

Incidentally, although I din't hold much hope for a change, I just looked up two very famous saxophonists (among jazz musicians) who have almost no more than one significant refernce link. They deserve their pages, so I won't mention names. This shows that probably notariety guidelinbes were more tolerant when these pages were created (such as playing with world famous musicians) and/or perhaps the reviewer was knowledgable about jazz. There's a significant difference between jazz and other forms because the amount of publication is far more limited in jazz than it is in other genres.

On Gabriel Castañon's Bio
Dear Clarityfiend, You rejected an article proposal stating that being a production member of a Grammy Award winning album is not the same as winning an album, but it is. The Grammy Academy does give awards to all qualifying crew members of a production, in this case, Gabriel Castañón is the main producer of the winning albums and so, he has been granted several Latin Grammys. Even Audio company Solid State Logic refers to him as such. See here. I meant to answer in the page, but I don't see an option to answer the comment, Thank you for your time nevertheless


 * Okay, I'll concede that he's won several Latin Grammys, but I'm not convinced that being one of a bunch of winners (I can't even count how many there are for Entren Los Que Quieran, well over a dozen at least) as a mixer or engineer is sufficient by itself. To support this stand, note that there are no sources for him.


 * Also, there's one or more things wrong with what's listed in the Awards and nominations section. The past winners search was not done correctly. Like the tip there says, you need to put quotes around the name to get accurate results. I only see two wins, one for "Mientes" and the other for Entren Los Que Quieran. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

AfD
Re Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters named Taylor. Please be careful. Since I did create the list, for reasons I explain later in the AfD discussion, "Nobody in their right mind has compiled another such list before" is condescending and uncivil, but I doubt if you meant it to be. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops. My apologies. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's OK. Enjoy your day, and your editing. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:George Hebard Maxwell
Hi, is notability the primary reason for rejection of my submission?

Reliable sources for notability:

- http://www.azarchivesonline.org/xtf/view?docId=ead/asl/MG1GeorgeMaxwell.xml;query=;brand=default This is an official Arizona State Archive of the individual's work.

- Similar archive at Louisiana State Museum Historical Center https://louisianadigitallibrary.org/islandora/object/lsm-p15140coll22%3A6

- This is an academic article re Maxwell's work https://www.jstor.org/stable/3640865

- From the Online Archive of California: "George Hebard Maxwell (1860-1946) was a California lawyer who became the leader of an alliance of business interests and advocates for federal irrigation projects throughout 16 Western states." https://oac.cdlib.org/search?style=oac4;Institution=UC%20Berkeley::Bancroft%20Library;titlesAZ=G;idT=UCb183135635

- Another academic article re Maxwell's work https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US201302767527

Thank you Rybkovich (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:Notability is key to determining whether a draft is accepted. If you incorporate these additional references (the first one is the one I'd already said was good in my explanation for declining Maxwell), then the draft will be approved. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Got it, thank you. Rybkovich (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Clarityfiend, I created a subsection for the archive databases. Also the Home Croft City article that is already being used, is just as much about Maxwell and his activity as of a historical period in a city. We should consider it as a primary rather than a secondary source. I hope that this works. Rybkovich (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

'Orrence
Just dropped by to say how much I enjoy your pithy comments, and found this: "I wrote the first plot summary for Lawrence of Arabia. I'm also rather pleased with the synopsis of I Know Where I'm Going!" My own vague claim to fame is that I went to the same school as the director of the former, plus P&P must be my favourite film team ever, especially A Canterbury Tale and The Silver Fleet. I don't do barnstars, but here's a coupla pix of an ancient barn near where I used to live. If you are a fan of Casablanca, have you seen Pépé le Moko? Lui: "Et avant?" Elle: "Avant quoi?" Lui: "Avant les bijoux." Elle: "Je les ai désirés." MinorProphet (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Clarityfiend (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I watched Pépé le Moko again last night, first time in around twelve years - sparkling script, like her diamonds, full of slang and atmospheric shots of the casbah. At one point she looks straight at him for a full ten seconds. A real tear-jerker, knocks (imho) Casablanca into a cocked hat. There are two shots of his immaculately-pressed trousers. So French. MinorProphet (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Strange congruity: (00:16:00)

"And before? (Et avant?) From Britain?" "Yes." "Truly?" "From Oxfordshire." Is that a desert country?" "No. A fat country. Fat people." "Are you not fat?" "No. I'm different." MinorProphet (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * So I got to half-way and fell asleep because wide-screen inter-tribal rivalry really doesn't interest me. If only the director had engaged some half-decent actors. I am informed that Sharif was a better poker player, and O'Toole was a better drunkard. MinorProphet (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Mae West Photo
Its the only photo i can find


 * That's why the draft was rejected. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Tex
All containers of this company have the abbreviation "tex" on them. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Textainer_container.jpeg If I see a container somewhere that says "Tex" and I want to know something about it on Wikipedia, then of course I enter "tex" and not "Textainer Group Holdings". A good reason to mention this abbreviation. And anyway, what a dumb reason is "partial match only" to remove something from the page? With this logic you should also remove Joe Tex, Text Executive Programming Language, Nestlé Tex, the airport and Big Tex... --TheImaCow (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * People are often referred to by given or last name, TEX is an acronym cited in the first sentence of Text Executive Programming Language, TEX is a candy bar, etc. (Big Tex is also a partial match; that's why it's in the See also section.) On the other hand, people don't go around referring to containers or shipments by the company as "tex". Clarityfiend (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I had recently seen some of these "Tex" containers driving around on the streets. Every 4th or 5th container that you see here in my region is one of these containers, and since I'm generally interested in transport of all kinds, I wanted to find out a bit more about the company behind it. Of course, I first enter "Tex" in the search, and then I might be redirected to the actual company name. But since there was no mention of Textainer Group Holdings on the disambig, I had to search longer than necessary.
 * Besides, I think that non-experts (like me) also refer to red containers with "tex" written on them as "Tex shipping container".


 * In short, I think that the article Textainer Group Holdings should definitely be mentioned on the site. It can be the last result of "See also", but the important thing is that it is mentioned.


 * --TheImaCow (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * That last option is acceptable. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, good, i will add it to the bottom. --TheImaCow (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, i saw you added it already... thanks! --TheImaCow (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

List of Playboy Playmates of the Month
I saw your comments on why the List of Playboy Playmates of the Month should be redirected and felt the need to respond. First, one is not enough, because literally now they are just names on a page. Good jobs reducing them even more. Second, your Lord of the Rings line makes no sense and is quite stupid. The reason why there were multiple lists was that they were multiple years. At one point it was noteworthy to be a playmate of the month. Regardless of how you feel individually, the wiki is supposed to be a source of information that you and the other now reduced.Allenknott3 (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Joseph Whitty
You reviewed this as not meriting an article. I see it as a borderline acceptance, potentially WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I've accepted it at AFC, and will remain neutral should you feel it ought to go to AfD. Fiddle Timtrent Faddle Talk to me 17:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I think a better solution is to create 1923 IRA hunger strike or October 1923 IRA hunger strike and merge there. IMO, he is only notable for his association with the event and WP:ONEEVENT applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no disagreement with you over that. My decision was based simply on my opinion that it had a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. What happens to it and other similar articles after community discussion and consensus can only improve Wikipedia. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 21:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Question about why you backed out my change to the "Robin Hood" page.
Both the films I added to the Robin Hood DAB page ("The Adventures of Robin Hood" and "Robin and Marian") are films about Robin Hood, the same as the multiple other films listed on the same page, such as, "Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves". So, how are the additions I made improper DAB entries?

Thank you.


 * See WP:Partial title matches. Also note the hidden comment at the top of the dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * SO, "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" is a full match for "Robin Hood", but "The Adventures of Robin Hood" is not? The match must be at the BEGINNING of the name of the film, otherwise, it's not a valid match? I think there is something illogical here.  The subject of all those films listed on the DMB page for "Robin Hood" are about Robin Hood.  "The Adventures of Robin Hood" is also about Robin Hood.  In fact, it's arguably the most famous and well-regarded of all the films about Robin Hood.  But, because the title of the file doesn't BEGIN with "Robin Hood", its invalid?


 * No, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves could be shortened to Robin Hood, as is done by various sources in that film's article, e.g. Entertainment Weekly, The Los Angeles Times. Not the case with The Adventures of Robin Hood. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd argue that it's more likely for "The Adventures of Robin Hood" to be shortened to "Robin Hood", because that film is the quintessential Robin Hood movie - certainly the best known. If I find a published article, such as in Entertainment Weekly that refers to "The Adventures of Robin Hood" as "Robin Hood", will that satisfy the requirements for a full match?  I just think its illogical in a DMB page about Robin Hood that lists films about Robin Hood for a film such as "The Adventures of Robin Hood", merely because the words "Robin Hood" occur not at the beginning of the title (such as, if Warner Brothers had titled the filme, "Robin Hood: The Adventures of") not to mention "The Adventures of Robin Hood."


 * Certainly. However, you should read MOS:DAB: "Disambiguation pages ... are non-article pages designed to help a reader find the right Wikipedia article when different topics could be referred to by the same search term" (bolding mine), not for articles that just have some connection to the term. Also, there is already a List of films and television series featuring Robin Hood. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

No forfeited VC was ever restored.
The June 2015 issue of Sabretache, The Journal of the Military Historical Society of Australia has an article by myself entitled Forfeited Victora Cross myths. The article, pages 26 to 30, is online at https://www.mhsa.org.au/download/sabretache-vol-lvi-no-2-june-2015/

The article was well received and Lord Ashcroft in Victoria Cross Heroes Volume two refers to my research in the chapter on Gunner James Collis, awarded the VC for Afghanistan in 1880, one of the eight who forfeited the award.

Both lists published by the War Office in 1920 and 1953 include the eight forfeited recipients in the alphabetical list and in a note at the end of the awards before 1914, the eight forfeited awards and the date of the Warrant for each forfeiture is included. There has never been any London Gazette notice, which is required by the Warrant, to indicate that any or all of the forfeited awards have been restored. Anthony Staunton (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I was about to reverse your edits, only in respect to forfeitures, when I noticed what seems to be the source of your view. I have emailed the institution in respect to the paragraph which I feel you consulted as follows:


 * The above paragraph is misleading since both the original 1856 warrant and the 1920 warrant contained almost identically worded clauses to cancel and restore Victoria Cross awards. The 1931 and 1961 warrants continue to include cancelation and restoration clauses although reworded in 1931. The 1920 Warrant added the requirement that cancellations and restorations be published in the London Gazette.


 * The forfeiture warrants cancelled the entries on the Victoria Cross Register and no award has been restored. The Victoria Cross Register should not be confused with the War Office lists of Victoria Cross recipients published in 1920 and 1953. Both lists for awards prior to 1914 are alphabetical lists and the names of the eight forfeited recipients are listed but at end of both 1920 and 1953 lists is a note that lists the eight names and the dates of the forfeiture warrants. Anthony Staunton (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * My changes do not state that the VCs were restored, only that the eight are on the official list of holders, as stated by the National Army Museum. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That is the reason I stopped myself from amending the edits. I will wait until I get a reply from NAM but perhaps an explicit statement would then be helpful. Anthony Staunton (talk) 05:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Was Captain Napin pardoned?
Hi! Thanks for creating in 2018. I notice you added Captain Napin to this category, then someone else added this to his infobox. However, there is no inline citation provided, and in fact the article states that Napin did not accept the pardon when Captain Vincent Pearse arrived. I have therefore removed Napin from this category and amended the infobox. If you know that Napin did in fact accept a pardon, please undo my edit and add an inline citation. — (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Request on 01:53:54, 19 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Gunlomboy
Hi,

Thanks for reviewing my submission. I have to say I am a little confused as to why this submission has been rejected, when it has vastly more detail and references than most of the other Australian women ambassadors featured on this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_women_ambassadors

I have written the submission for completeness as Robyn Mudie is one of a handful of Australian missing from that page. If completeness is not important, then I would suggest removing all the women mentioned on that page.

Regards,

Gunlomboy (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The references do not show she is notable. They are either routine announcements or not about her in any depth. Whether the other ambassadors deserve articles themselves is a separate issue. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Per
Even if it wasn't wikislang, which it clearly is, it's still wrong in this case. The title wasn't changed per (in accordance with) the website. If anything, it's the other way round. If the former had been the case, I would have edited the page to say "The author renamed the series The Last Kingdom, in accordance with a news notice at his website. (reason: replacing wikislang)". Orpheus (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Why do you persist in calling "per" slang/wikislang? It's a perfectly normal word. In fact, Merriam-Webster dictionary entry notes it is a synonym for "according to", which is the same or similar to what you replaced it with. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

List of last stands
I noticed you went on a mass deletion spree on that wiki page just because some of the battles listed ended in the defenders victory. A defeat for the attacking side does not mean the battle is no longer a last stand. All a battle has to have to be qualified as a last stand is for the defenders to be heavily outnumbered, have almost no option of retreat or surrender, inflict heavy casualties on the attackers, and of course be the last line of defense or stronghold before the enemy reaches behind the lines. Any mix and match of any of the criteria listed above means a battle qualifies. And your mass deletion is especially wrong as the wiki page at the time even stated that attackers didn’t have to win for battles to be listed there. GansMans (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article's definition doesn't exclude the defenders surviving. On reexamining my deletions, I arrive at the following:
 * Battle of Stamford Bridge, Battle of Palmito Ranch, Defense of Brest Fortress, Battle of Tali–Ihantala, Battle of Bastogne, Battle of Pusan Perimeter, Meuse–Argonne offensive, Battle of Saumur (1940) - Not overwhelming odds.
 * Battle of Naseby - One regiment made a stand after all was lost, but otherwise the sides were roughly comparable in numbers.
 * Battle of Blood River - Pretorius had plenty of options; he just simply chose to defend a strong position.
 * Hill 262 - Maybe, but what were the odds?
 * Battle of Kapyong, Battle of Yultong - Most Korean War battles had the UN forces outnumbered, especially in the early stages of the Chinese intervention. Are they all last stands?
 * Battle of Castle Itter Battle of Cerro Corá, Raid on Godfrey Ranch, Pavlov's House - Maybe.
 * Siege of Jadotville - Definitely. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * After looking things over again, I can only conclude the list needs a major overhaul, which I may get to. Nothing is sourced, and more of the entries are headscratchers, e.g. Battle of Kosovo. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Article rejected
Interested that you rejected my article on the new CEO of the International Tennis Integrity Agency. He meets the notability guidelines as both a Commanding Officer and as CEO of a major sporting body (see associated page). The article has 22 references! More would be easily possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdg8898 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * There are three "references" that are about him. One of them is a routine announcement and the other two are not from independent sourcese, so really there are no significant references. And the agency hardly qualifies as a "major sporting body". Clarityfiend (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

The WikiChevrons

 * Thank you. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleting DAB
Hello Clarityfiend, will you delete the Maiorano DAB page please? Because I don't have an account. It's a stub where both entries point to redirects. 2A02:C7F:38FC:A300:B113:BFC1:95DD:6AFA (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I can't unilaterally delete a page, even one with no valid dab entries, but I have found a few legit Maioranos and redirected to the footballer. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

That's great, thank you. Can you do something similar to Maiorana please? I'd also delete that page; all but one entry are stubs, one doesn't even have an article. If redirects are any easier to delete then there's these undue ones that, though unrelated, used to messily crosslink: Maiorana (surname) Maiorano (disambiguation) Maiorano (surname) Majorana (disambiguation) Majorana (surname) Talk:Maiorana (surname) Talk:Maiorano Talk:Majorana (surname) 2A02:C7F:38FC:A300:B113:BFC1:95DD:6AFA (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't Maiorana also be a DAB? I thought they only needed to be split out if there's so many that the DAB is unwieldy. As it stands, all but one entry are stub articles and one (Daniel) points to a redirect without it's own article. Also, can I ask why you removed the Majorana equation and fermion, and marjoram from Majorana? Regardless, thank you for all your help. 2A02:C7F:38FC:A300:B113:BFC1:95DD:6AFA (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Maiorana (surname) is redundant, but not worth the bother of nominating for deletion.
 * Maiorano (disambiguation) and Maiorano (surname) have been nominated for deletion.
 * Majorana (disambiguation) and Majorana (surname) are just fine. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Swede Vejtasa
Hello. This is to discuss your edits in Swede Vejtasa.

In the show, Mr. Vejtasa says he shot down 4 dive bombers and 2 torpedo bombers, which is not just 4 in total as you wrongly stated in the article. Please correct your text accordingly, because as it is now, it is incorrect and cannot be in the article. And please make it a note, same as the other note in that spot: "Postwar analysis confirmed four; see Lundstrom, John B. The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign, pp.397, 401, 420-421, 425" Not only it is not aesthetic right now, arguably your note is not of a higher importance than the one about Lundstrom's postwar analysis, and thus cannot be sticking out in the main text like that. For making a note you can either use ref or efn commands. Path-x21 (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? It is perfectly clear that I am referring to the second group of aircraft, not the total number shot down that day. And it is not something that should be buried under a note. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Considering we have this discussion, it is an indication that it is not "perfectly clear". For an experienced editor is should not really be hard to add "torpedo" in front of the "bombers" to actually make it unambiguous. Nevertheless, more importantly, there is still a major problem with your statement, because the show indicates that the first group of aircraft were 4 dive bombers that he shot down and the second group of aircraft were 2 torpedo bombers that he shot down. This contradicts the statement you made about the show. You simply cannot just cite something while saying something completely different. Path-x21 (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You're the one who's confused. The first group consisted of the two Vals. Check his Navy Cross citation. Also, how can it be ambiguous when I stated they were Kates? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * After the new edit you have made now, it indeed became clearer that it is about torpedo bombers. Thank you for that. However, the main issue is not resolved. To reiterate, the show indicates that the first group of aircraft were 4 dive bombers that he shot down, and the second group of aircraft were 2 torpedo bombers that he shot down. Thus, there is a contradiction between the information given in the show (2 torpedo bombers) and what you stated in the article (4 torpedo bombers) while citing the show. I am personally convinced that the show mixed it up, but that is the information given in the show. When citing something, we should either use the information strictly as it is in the source, or use another (more reliable) source. As an editor, you cannot just arbitrary transform the information on your own (unless you cite another secondary source that explicitly examined the discrepancy in the given source).


 * Vejtasa just says planes, not their type. That's the narrator's mistake. These were the ones attacking Enterprise (the whole episode centers on the Big E). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, he say just four planes but the show itself (not just narrator) then explicitly states the those were dive bombers. That is the information given in the show. Like I said, as an editor you cannot just arbitrary judge what is wrong or right in a source. According to Wikipedia standards, you would need a second source for that, and that source should specifically discuss the discrepancy of the first source, not just independently giving a different information. So I believe this is still an issue. To temporarily solve this problem, I now added a note explaining what information is actually given in the source, so that the reader can get the full picture. Path-x21 (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * There is a second source: Lundstrom. And it would be rather absurd to require a reference to document a TV show's mistakes. Who goes around documenting such things? Vejtasa and Lundstrom are quite enough to show four were shot down. There's no real need to point out Battlefield 360°'s shortcomings. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * If it was up to me, I would have not included the reference to the show as an in-text reference in the first place, because it is an unreliable source (hence my initial revert of your edit). But you insisted on keeping it, so I feel obliged to add a note about it so that the full picture is presented to the reader. It is most likely that the show misinterpreted or misused Vejtasa's interview, and as result that particular interview is now also tainted and unreliable since it is an integral part of the show and the information it contains as a source. I would personally never use a TV show as a (serious) source. If more than Lundstrom was ever needed, then I would go for "Seven at Santa Cruz" by Ted Edwards, who extensively interviewed Vejtasa and examined various sources and their conflicting information regarding this event (including the mess in Battlefield 360°). Path-x21 (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not citing Vejtasa as a reference, since he's a primary source, just as confirmation of Lundstrom, and I'm especially not citing Battlefield 360°. However, you do have a point: there is a remote chance that editing could have distorted what he said, so I'll just remove it. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you! In the end, this is probably the best solution. Path-x21 (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Recently declined submission
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Martin_Knezevic

Hello, I post submissions on professional basketball, it is my passion. This post was declined recently. But why then is this article below on wikipedia? If anything my submission is better written and includes more accurate information. The table on the side is also consistent with other pro coaches and players. Thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Weissling — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekJames619 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * In the first place, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have no interest in checking every basketball coach's article. Whether Eric Weissling belongs is a separate issue. (Based on a cursory look, he may not satisfy WP:NBASKETBALL either.) In the second, at least Weissling is better sourced. You don't use WP:inline citations, and what sourcing you have is weak, too weak IMO to qualify for WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Holiday greetings (2021)
Clarityfriend, I sincerely hope your holiday season goes well this year especially with what we went through last year. I'm optimistic that 2022 will be a better year for all of us: both in real life and on Wikipedia. Wishing you the best from, Interstellarity (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Phasing tweak, eh?
;-)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Clarityfiend: Enjoy the holiday season&#32;and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC) Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message