User talk:Clarityfiend

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Happy New Year![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

Dear Clarityfiend,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

"Pimpernel" Smith[edit]

See revision. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Jacquez Green redirect[edit]

Hey, Clarity. Can you explain the rationale behind this redirect: [1]? It seems unnecessary to me. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Well he is the best known, but there appears to be enough entries to create a dab page, so I've done so. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
That works for me, Clarity. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Got an "authority" for this?[edit]

You deleted my restore of ships, yachts, named Corsair with this comment:

"if not military, then transportation; also no article, no dab entry; no pipelining"

Meanwhile at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships we are discussing the disambiguation issues for ships and the need to clearly differentiate ships for those using Wikipedia with limited knowledge of how to track a specific ship when searching with only limited information. Do you have wide consensus in your rule above? If not you need to reconsider your edits. Palmeira (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This isn't a ship index. A dab page is for navigation to articles. Per MOS:DAB, "An entry with no links at all is useless for further navigation", and J. P. Morgan doesn't mention the two yachts I removed, so neither is appropriate for a dab page. Per WP:DABPIPE, "Subject to certain exceptions as listed below, piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages." Clarityfiend (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that clarifies an issue about how to handle ships. A lot of people, including some trying to find "Dad's ship in the war" have nothing much but a name and general time frame. What I am suggesting over at the ship's discussion is indeed a ship index page based on that barest knowledge where full identification of ships, including those without current or perhaps even future coverage here, is possible as an aid. With that in mind I'd then put a Corsair (ship) link in the dab page that is linked to the ships of that name list. By the way, such a list helps potential writers here because ships can be a tangle and more than one has conflated or confused ships badly. That includes confusing a covered ship with one without an article. A glaring example was SS Monterey long being the redirect from USAT Monterey and even including some "Army service" stuff largely because the first was so prominent and the second fairly difficult to find unless one had considerable period references available. Palmeira (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:73 (number) RfC[edit]

Sorry to be a pain but it's glaringly obvious that without breaking the Talk:73 (number) RfC into separate "survey" and "discussion" sections, it's going to be impossible for anyone to determine the outcome of the RfC. Your opinion seems clear but it would be inappropriate for anyone else to formalise your desired outcome in the "survey" section so could you please do so when you have some time. Thanks. --AussieLegend () 17:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


re: "There are no WP:reliable sources listed as far as I can see. PR releases, store links, images, etc. don't qualify. ":::: Having a credit in an academy award winning film is enough to be credited in the encyclopedia proper. Did you not see that citation: 2602:30A:2CF0:1420:B172:438B:B74E:EBE0 (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Too late now. Anyway, that's not true. Being nominated for an Oscar qualifies, but being credited as the equivalent of a flying monkey in The Wizard of Oz, not so much. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Vanna Bonta for deletion[edit]

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanna Bonta (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sonny Boy Williamson[edit]

I agree with your page move - but how are you suggesting to rename Sonny Boy Williamson II? I think it needs to be discussed on the talk page before any change takes place. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion(s) on his talk page. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Vienna Conservatory[edit]

Hi Clarityfiend. Please note that I reverted the Vienna Conservatory back to a disambiguation page, for reasons explained in its talk page. --Atavi (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


Hello. Would you please sign your !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick W. Bohnstedt. Not doing so makes this thing attribute your !vote to someone else. James500 (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Help desk[edit]

Thanks for picking up those Harvard sources, Clarityfiend. Frankly, I had my doubts about this request from the start (IPs source location and other details are a bit strange). But AGF-ing it's always better to research such requests of course. I added 1 ref to the Asian Tribune for now - 2 refs should be enough, unless a contradicting RS pops up. GermanJoe (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks for taking the time to Merge "Bert L. Stevens‎" - 9 times out of 10 no one usually bothers Merging despite !voting to do so so it was nice for once to see someone do so so thanks - Much appreciated!,

Keep up the great work, –Davey2010Talk 03:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I was the first to suggest it, so it was my responsibility. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Jet Storm and Jet Attack[edit]

See the changes. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


I see you've been busy reverting any attempt to categorise Category:Stunts. Aside from the fact that any category outside the hierarchy is pretty pointless and might as well not exist, you're going to be busy now that it's the oldest outstanding issue on WP:Database reports/Uncategorized categories!!! <g> Trying to move forward, what categories would you put on it? And if you can't categorise it, then maybe it's not a natural category and it should be deleted.
I must admit I'm a pragmatist and recognise that the real world is complicated and "fuzzy", so I tend to solutions that "work" rather than those that are ideologically pure. And I'd suggest that you are being less than pure when you put all those TV shows in the category - they may be about stunts, but they are not "stunts" as such. Same with the subcategories - a stunt performer is not a type of stunt and so therefore one could argue that stunt performers is "Not a subcategory" of stunts. But obviously it makes sense to categorise that way because it is useful to readers even if it fails the purity test. And that's how I feel about putting stunts in Filmmaking - it may not be 100% pure but it fits users' expectations. Particularly since we don't have an equivalent cat for TV production, 90% of stunts are filmed for some purpose - and even some eg cheerleading stunts will have ended up in a movie somewhere. Perhaps it might help if you were to farm off the TV shows into a new category? Regardless, the status quo is not sustainable and I repeat my challenge - categorise or delete!! <g> Le Deluge (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "ideological purity". Per WP:SUPERCAT: "logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second". Not "sort of, close enough, 90% implies". None of the proposed supercategories encompasses stunts or even comes close; they only overlap. I've struggled to come up with a supercategory, but (a) that doesn't mean there isn't one, and (b) where is it stated there's a time limit to find one?
As for the TV shows and stunt performers not belonging, that's just plain absurd. See for example Category:Aviation. Category:Aviation television series and Category:Aviators are sub-subcategories of it. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
If pressed, I might go with Category:Performing arts. I'll have to think about it some more, though. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey - we're on the same side here. My point is that WP:SUPERCAT gets bent all the time, and you can't compare a word that is a topic like Aviation to a word that is a thing like a stunt. Things break WP:SUPERCAT. For instance, Category:Schoolteachers should only be in the biography hierarchy according to WP:SUPERCAT, it should only be in categories like Category:Educators and Category:People who work with children. It is also in the appropriate topic - Category:Teaching. But Category:Schoolteachers is also a subcategory of Category:Schools. I suspect you would say that it would be absurd if it was not - and I would agree with you. But Joe Bloggs the schoolteacher is not a school, so WP:SUPERCAT would say that schoolteachers should not be a subcat of schools. In the real world, that rule gets bent.
I'd also note that WP:SUPERCAT has some flexibility - "the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent also" The extent of this flexibility has been debated somewhere recently, the example that was given was of members of the British Army not all being British citizens, but that category still gets categorised as a subcat of British people because otherwise you'd never categorise anything. Pragmatism wins over ideology.
I think the other thing guiding me towards Filmmaking is that it is film/TV that is responsible for the idea of stuntmaking as a profession in its modern form, and it is that professionalism which means that it is enough of a "thing" for us to be talking about it as a category now. The very word only took on its meaning of a performance in 1913 so it's very much a creation of the 20th century. The Victorian daredevils and tightrope walkers may have performed what we would call stunts, but without film/TV it would be at best a WP:SMALLCAT and would probably go down as a niche part of circus skills or something.
I'm not setting a time limit (although tangling with the database reports means you will end up involved with the most OCD-ish of Wikipedians <g>). I'm just suggesting that it's a good idea to work out how a new category will fit into the hierarchy before creation, it helps avoid making a miscegenated category that causes problems down the line. To be honest, repeatedly reverting good-faith attempts to fit a category into the hierarchy, even if they are not perfect answers to the problem, without offering a solution of your own just comes across as a bit WP:OWNy. I'm sure that's not your intention, but that's how a visitor from Mars might see it. Le Deluge (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
After considering it, I'm okay with Performing arts. It's better than some of the entries already there (I removed Percussion instrument). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Is'ad[edit]

Your comment was not very civil. Please consider removing the additional bolded letter.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 19:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Here Comes Mr. Jordan[edit]

Check out some changes. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in[edit]

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC) check-in[edit]

Hello Clarityfiend,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

  • Please make sure that you can still log in to your account. If you are having trouble let me know.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to For more information about how to use clippings, see .
  • Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


Hi. This userpage: User:Hollowspaced, belonging to someone who may (or may not) be WP:NOTHERE, appears to be a copy of yours. Hope this helps. I have taken it to ANI also. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

point clarified in talk page. NM.

Consolidated B-24 Liberator[edit]

Keep an eye on this article, I have a suspicion that the recent, massive edits are all copy-viols. I had done some checks on exact wording and found where the sources came from, all unattributed. Quite a few typos and spelling variations were also involved. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Christopher Strong and Wings in the Dark[edit]

See revisions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Madam Satan and Satellite in the Sky[edit]

While we're at it. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

List of lost silent films (1925–29)[edit]

Okay so I was adding a film in for List of lost silent films (1925–29), And somehow something odd happened to the table-the film Yale vs. Harvard is now completely off on it! Wgolf (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The year rowspan had to be adjusted. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Here Comes the Navy[edit]

Take a look at some revisions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion is going on regarding Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/March_2015_North_India_Unseasonal_Rain. Your opinion is invited. सुमित सिंह (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverted edit on Sharpe's Gold[edit]

Hi Clarityfiend. Could you please explain why you do not think that my additions to the article Sharpe's Gold are improvements? Upon re-reading it I can see that I have made mistakes here and there which obviously had to be corrected. However, as I elaborated the plot, which was not fully covered, I cannot see why you find the text, on the whole, troublesome. Kind regards Toxophilus (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I was a bit hasty, but a Wikipedia film synopsis is not intended to be a blow-by-blow summary. The whole Ayres/Skillicorn incident doesn't have much to do with the main plot line. It also results in an abrupt transition to the latter. If you check out the plot, you'll see that it takes roughly the same tack. Ayres is not mentioned at all, nor are the French cavalry, blowing up the caves, Munro and the despatch, etc. (It does include the arrest, but not the hanging.) I don't remember the Nugents being of any help in the fighting (although it has been quite a while since I last watched the movie), and the sentence about finding Will is redundant, as it is already established that he and Ellie are rescued. Now I grant you that WP:FILMPLOT recommends 400-700 words, and the current version is only about 200, but I don't feel the plot is all that elaborate. Perhaps the clashes with the French cavalry and the recovery of Will's senses could be re-added, as well as Ellie spotting her father's pipe, if the other synopsis is accurate. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Tell you what. I'll get the DVD from the library and rewatch it. Maybe it'll change my mind. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I was not aware of the 700 word plot limitation. Actually I think the plot on is more fullfilling that the current one in the article so possible one could base an addition on this resumé. The pieces I added was things I missed when reading the plot, so I thought it just might had been left out by mistake. The daughter, Ellie, kills on of the french and saves Ayres in the first skirmish. Have fun rewatching. It is a good film. Kind regards Toxophilus (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:World's Fair films[edit]

Hi there. I see that I've reversed your edit on Category:World's Fair films, as a sibling to such related categories as Category:Amusement park films. I just don't see how these films can be said to have world fair's as a "topic" if they are generally about home countries or environmental issues or what have you, and not about world's fairs per se. There is at least one film that does have a world's fair as a topic, and that's Expo: Magic of the White City. But that's not what we are categorizing here. Your thoughts? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. The reversion's fine. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Questionable sentence - Lawrence of Arabia[edit]

[Redacted nonsense]

Hello C. Those of us who have been dealing with this problem editor for the last several months are removing their posts. As this is your talk page I did not want to do that without your okay. I don't know if you have seen their edits on any articles other than LoA so I wanted you to be aware of the list of IPs that this person has edited from as seen at the top of this talk page User talk: Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 16:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Julian Gardner[edit]

As you recently commented in an AfD discussion for [[Julian Gardner (poker player)], you may be interested in an ongoing discussion at its talk page regarding whether some information should remain in the article if it is to be kept. If you would like to comment, please feel free to do so. Thanks for contributing to the deletion discussion! ~ RobTalk 03:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Poker Project bios and discussion[edit]

I'd like to invite you to check out Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker#Notability Requirement... if only because it would be nice to have another voice involved. Thanks. 2005 (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Captain Planet[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Captain Planet has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.Godsy(TALKCONT) 10:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Women in the Wind[edit]

Check it out. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The Aviator (1985 film) and The Gypsy Moths[edit]

Another and another. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Skirmish at Albany, Kentucky[edit]

Hi there. Most of my edits are to Mississippi and the southern US, and I noticed that User:Eight-Nation-Alliance fan101 has created a ton of one-paragraph "skirmishes" from the Civil War. None of them seem notable, and the sourcing is terrible. Should I just pick through them all and nominate the ones the seem truly non-notable? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting until these first four are resolved/deleted to avoid unnecessary conflict with Мандичка. There seem to be about 15 or so skirmishes, two actions, one siege and a partridge in a pear tree that are ripe for the axe. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I have just noticed this as well. It is not the first time someone has appeared and started to throw up ill-considered stubs or very poorly written articles just longer than stubs that may or may not be on notable battles or persons. It is tedious to have to clean up after such sprees. I have commented on three of the articles so far and have actually commented in favor of keeping Skirmish at Alderson's Distillery. Close call but I encourage you to look at my comments. My guess is that I am likely to agree with you on most, and probably all, of the others. Donner60 (talk)

The Union Army: Cyclopedia of Battles[edit]

You can find a full copy of this old but valuable book on line at Donner60 (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of unit ID[edit]


I noticed that you removed the German unit ID from the "Kelly's Heroes" article while keeping other unit references:

While this film does not claim to be 100% historically accurate, it does use actual unit badges and insignia, for example Oddball's shoulder patch points to a specific US Armored Division. Actually, this reference was also removed in a different edit.

The skeleton key symbol was used by a German SS tank unit, is there a reason why you deleted this specific link? "...defended by three Tiger tanks from <unit_reference> with infantry support."

Regards, Vlad.nagea (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Unless they specifically stated it was that particular unit onscreen (which I don't recall them doing), as opposed to the producers using whatever uniforms were at hand, IMO that constitutes WP:OR. As for the other units, I overlooked them (or maybe they were added later). Wikiquote has General Colt saying, "Elements of the 321st and the 35th", so that appears to be okay. I don't know about Oddball. In any case, the units aren't particularly critical in the synopsis. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, such details can be omitted from the synopsis without loss of clarity. Had to use the turret insignia and the uniforms to find a potential historical equivalent, but there are no explicit mentions of the German unit. About the 321st, I couldn't find it in the independent US tank battalions list, probably it's just an artistic license. I also had an older edit about the unit numbers of the tanks defending the Clermont bank, thought they should be mentioned as a recognition to the film crew effort to ensure continuity, is that detail also WP:OR ? I'm only asking for damage assessment, since the paragraph was edited-out a while ago by an anonymous user. Mihai-Vlad Nagea (talk) 08:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
When did you make this edit, so I can see what you're talking about? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I added the tank numbers in the same edit as the German unit name:
The numbers were removed in the edit:
Mihai-Vlad Nagea (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's not OR since you can see the numbers onscreen. However, it's not a good idea to describe what happens to each individual tank. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


Hello, I was reading an article and saw your username in the last edited section. I just wanted to say it's an interesting name and very appropriate for Wikipedia. :) - Lafin T. Jack 20:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Lafin T. Jack 20:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Love on the Run (1936 film)[edit]

Caught this on TCM last night. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. No more pictures with that woman. Or I'll take a wire hanger to you. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The real reason for doing up a quickie on this film is that it has some historical significance. The Lockheed Electra ("R16020") at the "London Metropolitan Airport" (in reality, Burbank) was owned by Amelia Earhart and was being readied for her record-breaking circumnavigational flight of the globe in 1937. Her mentor and flight instructor Paul Mantz had been hired to work on the film and he had the Earhart aircraft re-painted into a fictional scheme and used it for the ground sequences, while studio cockpit mock-ups and scale models were employed for other scenes. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hilliard's Legion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Cumberland Gap (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edwin P. Ramsey, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Wichita and Distinguished Service Cross (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Dab pages[edit]

Hello, I've already noticed a couple of times that you're not fully aware of all guidelines concerning disambiguation pages. I'm thinking of the use of piping, multiple blue links per line, hatnotes, etcetera. May I advise you to have a read through WP:DDD and/or WP:MOSDAB to refresh your memory on what's allowed and what isn't? Thanks, --Midas02 (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? I'm fully aware of the rules. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't keep a full list ready at hand, it's just that I noticed your nickname attached to some partially incorrect changes. The one I did recently come across was Gordon Hill, and there were some issues with the changes to Mercedes (leaving some piping in place, unaccompanied red links, excessive removal of some partial matches wich may be considered as full matches) as well. I could keep you informed if I would happen to come across some other ones. --Midas02 (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with your reinsertion of Mercedes-AMG. The article itself states it's commonly known as AMG, the logo says just AMG and nowhere in the text is it referred to as anything other than that or its full title. I'll concede Mercedes-Benz in motorsport and Mercedes-Benz in Formula One; after reconsidering, if the latter had been titled "Mercedes-Benz (Formula One)", I wouldn't have batted an eye.
On rare occasions, I leave multiple blue links when there is no good alternative. As for the rest, maybe I do need to brush up on the picayune details again. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I partially agree with you on AMG, but since it's also a Mercedes brand, I decided to err towards leniency. The problem is that, by removing too many links, it becomes counterproductive as people will not necessarily find articles anymore they might be expecting. This is in particular an issue with disambiguators, some of whom don't tend to research things properly, and just click on the links being presented on the dab page. So it's often better to live and let live. --Midas02 (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree. It seems to me that they are purposely distancing/distinguishing themselves from the parent company with, among other things, their logo. How is this not WP:PTM? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfinished review of Civil War stubs; new low quality edits[edit]

@User talk:Magnolia677; @User talk:Clarityfiend

It seems I may have discouraged you from following up on the remaining mostly non-notable American Civil War battle stubs created by User:Eight-Nation-Alliance fan101 when I added some text to three of the articles that I thought might have some notability. I also added a few small details such as dates to a few of the other articles. I made the latter additions mostly for identification purposes and as sort of a marker that there seemed to be nothing more to add to a non-notable occurrence. Unfortunately, I did not finish this review or communicate further with you promptly. I did not want to preempt or hinder an important task but thought I could determine the few articles that could be kept and identify and have the research done for the others to be nominated for deletion.

It was my intention to do a complete review of these articles and tell you about the few I had upgraded and the remaining ones which appeared to be good candidates for deletion. I then backtracked and was going to add a brief message to the talk pages such as might support an AfD. I thought that the user had stopped throwing up these articles and there was no rush to complete this. I then let it slip a little too long.

The user is back causing some havoc in Civil War articles. He has created a few new articles with translations about minor Union Army brevet generals translated from the French Wikipedia. Why these articles are on that Wikipedia and not on the English Wikipedia would be anyone's guess, I suppose. It may be that they were copied from a book seriatim and that editors here have yet to find them important enough to add. I have made a few corrections but there is much to do to make these articles accurate and of some quality. Some of his recent work is just filling in categories or minor details but even there I already have found a few mistakes.

It would be difficult to argue that the officers that are the subject of the recently added articles are not notable but the translated articles being used have incorrectly formatted infoboxes, some inaccurate details and no real sources. At least one is not even in encyclopedic language and is mostly worded in the wrong tense. This could get out of hand because there were something like 1,700 brevet Union generals and I think the great majority of them (especially those who received confirmation of the brevets after the war was over) do not have articles on the English Wikipedia. Perhaps most of them served honorably and notably as colonels, and a few below that grade, and might merit articles, but not like the ones being thrown up now.

Also, the March 13, 1865 "omnibus" date, as you probably know, is a back date in almost every case and is inaccurate without further information about nomination and confirmation dates. Appointment dates could differ but they are hard to find in most cases. Eicher, Civil War High Commands, gives the other dates, but confuses the issue by including them only in the lists, not in the stubs about each person.

It is a shame to have to follow this user (as I suspect, a rather young person) around to correct mistakes and fill in details on articles of lesser importance in order to make Wikipedia's Civil War coverage not look bad. There are other articles of more importance to be upgraded or even created. He seems to intend to continue his mostly unproductive article creation and editing spree. I feel that my delay in finishing what I intended to do and communicating with you may have resulted in him gaining some confidence because much of his work was not deleted - when much of it should have been. Regardless, any remaining notable articles should be identified and the non-notable ones put up for deletion.

As I take a look at the remainder of the articles that he has can created and identify them as non-notable and without coverage that would show them as of any importance, would you be willing to nominate them for deletion, as I think was your original intention? I could do that but I don't want to pre-empt you. I also think I might make a contribution by providing supporting facts and analysis. The bottom line is that I will be guided by your preferences or ideas in how to approach this since I seem to have stopped the train, so to speak, and do not wish to do anything that may be offensive or which you think may be improper in some way. (I think that cleaning up the mess and improving the encyclopedia is proper, of course. I just want to not go about it in the wrong way or offend anyone, including our presumably young friend who could no doubt become a productive editor at some point.)

I am not sure what to do about this user in the final analysis if he persists. He is not a vandal and is in good faith. He does not know what is important and notable and what does not belong or only would belong with more information and citations. He does not seem to want to do (or maybe is not really able to do) research to fill out articles. He even noted at first that he was depending on others to fill out the articles. Very few people would be willing to do that. I am not sure how such a user could be approached directly or whether anyone more authoritative or more able could intervene.

Even though I feel some responsibility to keep up or build the quality of the articles on this topic, I don't want to have to give priority to cleaning up after someone and spend a lot of time doing it because of the volume. I have other articles or additions to articles in the works or planned and some other things I would rather work on first. In any event, though, I think that the existing articles and edits need to be followed up, deleted, changed or cleaned up and would appreciate your thoughts on my proposed plan and your preference or guidance on the handling of this.

I do need to work on this quickly because I will be offline almost every day for the last two weeks of September into the first weekend of October so if I am going to contribute to any nominations, I will need to do it by September 18 or it will almost certainly be after October 3 before I again will have more regular time for Wikipedia. I am sure it would not be a huge problem in the scheme of thinks to defer this for a short additional time but under the circumstances it seems better not to wait another month to make some progress on it. I am sorry this message got a little long but I thought I needed to set out some detail. Donner60 (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The Civil War and military articles in general are on my second tier of interest, so this just slipped off my Wiki-radar. If somebody brings this up, say in Afd, then I'll put in my two cents worth; otherwise, I'd rather be working on other stuff. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought that Magnolia677 would be most likely to want to proceed with the nominations since that editor did it before. I wanted to keep you advised, so I just wrote one note to both of you. I should have modified it a bit to address the nomination part only to Magnolia677. It just came back up, and the new articles are of a different nature (officers rather than battles, apparently translations of brief French Wikipedia articles) and there is gnome-like additions to other articles. The problems are the formatting, the completeness and a few errors. Notability is not a problem with the new articles so far although they are not high on my priority list either. In any event, I think the battle articles need to be handled and I will proceed to do the preliminary work and find out whether Magnolia677 wishes to make the nominations. Donner60 (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Edwin P. Ramsey[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Henry Botterell may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • was the last surviving pilot in the world to have seen action in the Great War.<ref name="latimes">{{cite news |title=Henry Botterell, 106; Last Surviving WWI Combat Pilot |newspaper=[[Los Angeles

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)