User talk:Walter Görlitz/Archived Talk to 2011-12

Emery

That's not what I mean to do at all. (I personally like their stance.) I just don't like how it's placed in the article right now. It doesn't deserve it's own section, (it's only one sentence/idea), and then I noticed it wasn't sourced, so I questioned if it was true at all, especially if the problem with sourcing had been around for years. Don't take it personally, please WP:AGF. Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Narnia

Using an infobox to display a message like this is completely inappropriate. The issue has little to do with copyright, only somewhat to do with fair use, and everything to do with WP:NFCC. Adding messages to the infobox display like this just doesn't make sense. If you want to bury it as a comment, using html comment notation, fine, but display a no image and a copyright warning? This is utterly wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting my actions. What was utterly wrong was deleting a photograph of a collection. However I'm not going to argue with you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• If you believe the image should not have been deleted, then take it to WP:DRV. In the meantime, having that infobox in that way is wrong. Please reverse your edit. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion invite

Hi, i invite you to a dicussion. here. Thanks Someone65 (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: 1. FC Köln

Thanks. The article has been set to use pending changes for a week, so it should be alright for now, but it certainly can't hurt to pay more attention to it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: nginx

Actually I made all needed changes before modifying the article. Radzio92 (talk) 07:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Band

If you "don't remember" seeing the video of "Walk on the Water" on MuchMusic, does that mean that it wasn't on MuchMusic? That may be problematic for your faith if seeing is believing. However, RetroActive Records, the record company that has re-released Daniel Band albums has cited this in their press releases on their website which I have cited to the article now. Hopefully that should remedy the issue.2.121.234.57 (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a copyright violation from the MySpace page masquerading as a quote. It can't be proven at all. I was a DJ of Christian music in the 1980s and 90s, in Vancouver and needed CanCon. I geared toward hard rock and metal. That made DB a favourite. In the mid 80s I needed to start adding the occasional video to the rotation and had I seen the video, or had it been offered to me from the label (I had direct connection with them) I would have played it. The fact that I don't remember seeing it is a nice way of saying I never saw it. The fact that I don't remember seeing it just means it didn't get "generous airplay". It's all marketing hype from their MySpace page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It may not have had the generous airplay as per the quote from RetroActive Records (which I would agree is probably a marketing angle), but I did post a link of the video that was played on MuchMusic. I know for a fact that it was played on MuchMusic (I have an old VHS tape of it myself). I find it strange you never got your hands on it being a Christian Music DJ and all (especially if you had a connection to the label). That's too bad. It was a good one. Anyway, I am a member of Bendale Bible Chapel and took part in One Way Inn events, I know the members of the band personally (20+ years and still have direct connection with them), and I have a file of old newspaper clippings of articles that ran about the Daniel Band in local Toronto papers during the height of their career (which I suppose I should scan and put together online to verify some of this info, but until then I guess I won't waste my time trying to update anything else right now seeing as it will immediately come down since there doesn't appear to be enough evidence about the band online these days other than marketing hype and album reviews. It's a shame really). I am also wondering why the info about the reunion Nov 20-22, 1992 was removed, seeing as it is verified on the One Way Inn site? What is the best way to verify info on Wikipedia (I'm new at the whole Wikipedia thing. I'm used to sourcing things for academic papers from books rather than websites, and there really aren't too many books out there about Daniel Band. If I am going to use those articles I have how would I cite them on Wikipedia so that they are actually verifiable. Would I have to create my own webpage with the data (scans of the articles) or can I post the data on Wikipedia directly?)? Thanks2.121.234.57 (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Paraphrasing the clippings, particularly if it's not promotional material from the band or one of their labels, with references to them would be excellent. Quoting things like what's on their Facebook page isn't appropriate. It violates WP:PRIMARY since it's promotional material and biased. You can't post it directly to Wikipedia, but you may take a quote and include it in the publication reference as part of the |quote= parameter. Since the material is copyrighted, you can't duplicate here. Alternately, you could do like Daniel Amos has done with their press releases and articles and reviews. I don't know if they have clearance to do it, but I can't imagine anyone complaining. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Red (band)

Thought it would be best to take this discussion here. I can't always explain myself well and it can come across as quite negative, though I can assure you I don't mean it. First of all, I should state that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth and not whether editors think it is true. I don't dispute that Red are a Christian rock band. Even if I did, there are enough reliable sources that state otherwise. But I can apply the same reasons you do for the inclusions of say hard rock or post-grunge. To state them in the lead as you do with Christian rock wouldn't be incorrect either because there are reliable sources for those genres also.

Rock music covers all those genres though, which is my main point. Even covers Heavy metal music. Like I said with featured articles such as Soundgarden and Pearl Jam, known as grunge bands, but the lead is rock. Would you say this is innacurate? Also, just to add, Rock music is more neutral.

Ah, and you are correct, I didn't think I went past the WP:3RR. I'm hands off that article now also. HrZ (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that Christian rock is more than just a genre. It encompasses a worldview. That's why I think it's important to list it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Is that your opinion though, that it is more than a genre? From what I gather, a quick read of the Christian rock article, it varys from band to band (lyrics, wither its just that the band members are Christians, etc) but nothing that states it is more than a genre. Though I would have to give it a better read tomorrow (its a bit late right now). Though I did come across this article; Christian alternative rock. A bit more accurate to the Allmusic source. HrZ (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

After looking at a few other articles, I propose this re-write for the articles lead:

“ Red (stylized as RED and R3D) is an American rock band from Nashville, Tennessee, formed in 2004. The bands lineup consists of singer Michael Barnes, guitarist Anthony Armstrong, bassist Randy Armstrong and drummer Joe Rickard and are known for their Christian rock music while incorporating other sounds such as alternative rock, hard rock, heavy metal and post-grunge. Jasen Rauch and Andrew Hendrix were the bands rhythm guitarist and drummer, respectively, from their formation. Hendrix was replaced by Hayden Lamb in 2006, who was then replaced by Rickard. Rauch left the band in 2009.

To date, Red have released three studio albums: End of Silence (2006), Innocence & Instinct (2009), and Until We Have Faces (2011). The first two albums earned the group Grammy Award Nominations for Best Rock Gospel Album.

”

Can do with better wording probably, and expanded more? HrZ (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Several other articles have links to either Christian rock, Christian metal, or similar in the opening sentence (Underoath, Stryper, Family Force 5, Skillet (band), The Letter Black, Newsboys, and Blessthefall. P.O.D. doesn't even split it out. Flyleaf is closer to what you're writing above, but they're more on the edge of the Christian music industry as they are not in a shared distribution deal with a Christian label as Red are. Perhaps we propose the re-write on the talk page and request a few days of comments before implementing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

See I don't watch those articles. I would still make the same arguement for changes there as well if I am being honest. I assume you agree with my proposed re-write though? Ill post it on the talk page in a minute. HrZ (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

We can try it and see what sort of fall-out (if any) we get. The reason for pointing those bands out is to show that there is precedent for including the "genre" piped behind the word Christian and that, for the most part, honours the band's preference. I thought it was late for you. =) --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Im sure WP:OSE comes into when citing other articles as examples. Could be wrong though! Well I posted on the articles talk page about the re-write. If no one replies, implement it in the article in say 2-5 days?

It is pretty late, I'm really tired. However I am watching the first series of Deadwood and I cant stop lol. It is such as good show! HrZ (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Knee Jerk Reversals

Never touch one of my edits without sending me a note. Imperious retractions are reserved for unsigned, unverified or suspected vandal accounts. Established editors should be extended the courtesy of a talk note indicated the issue with the edit. In your case, you could not verify the cite. I could have corrected that. Greenshinobi (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I want to add that I REALLY agree with your comment above that Wiki is about verifiable facts, not facts that we know are true. I'm just kind of embarrassed that I screwed up the citation in the first place. It should have been right the second I published it. Sorry to cause a fuss. Thanks 20:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

What are you going on about? First it's not "knee jerk" it's "knee-jerk". Second, the policy on wikipedia is to remove anything without notification. The only time I notify an editor of reverts to content they've added is when it's vandalism. I would be glad to do so whenever you vandalize an account, but won't when you make a general, unsubstantiated edit to any article I watch. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Just discovered that this was this edit where I removed your addition that failed verification. You had no recent history on the article. Your addition was unverifiable and essentially WP:SPAM by pointing readers to a commercial site. I assumed good faith and didn't tag your talk page with a SPAM warning. There are no policies that require me to do anything more.

I will continue to roll back any edit I come across that doesn't comply with Wikipedia policy. Feel free to continue to make edits, but be prepared to have them reverted by me and the other editors on Wikipedia without any notification. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Wiki's Burden of Proof Policy states WP:BURDEN: "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references." And that was my point. Greenshinobi (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You have the right to object. I have the right to remove trivia, whether it's unreferenced or referenced incorrectly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

RED is ALTERNATIVE METAL/NU METAL!

Kind of irritates me that you refuse to acknowledge RED as an Alternative Metal/Nu Metal band, when they clearly are. Of course, they have influences of all different types of genres like Alternative Rock, Post-Grunge, etc. (What you already covered) But if you can't hear that they have Alternative Metal/Nu Metal influences, then there is something wrong with your ears. Their riffs, and a lot of their songs sound exactly like a lot of other Alternative Metal/Nu Metal bands.

If you think they'd fall under "Alternative Rock" rather than "Alternative Metal", then what the hell...that just doesn't make any sense to me. Listen to some Alternative Rock bands, then listen to some Alternative Metal bands, and you'll realize which one RED fits into. To be honest, I'd consider RED to be apart of both, but I think they fall under Alternative METAL more.

So, Breaking Benjamin and Three Days Grace can be labeled as "Alternative Metal", but RED can't be? When RED is way heavier than either of those bands..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.122.89 (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point. You can jump and down all you want and scream at the top of your lungs that RED is anything, but without reliable sources to back the claim, it can be deleted. That's all I've done. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Walter

I'm not interested in arguing, but it doesn't seem like you want to carry a serious argument. I removed your references because you did not format them correctly so the entire article is consistent. And your assertion that I was vandalizing is demeaning. -- Noj r (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in arguing either. The references are formatted correctly. If you want consistency, you can either format the remainder of refs correctly or mangle mine to match the others. Removing valid references because of inconsistent formatting is vandalism, demeaning or not. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Its your responsibility to format the references correctly if you add them. Even so, vandalism is a strong term for somebody who sweated over that entire article. -- Noj r (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

They were not formatted incorrectly. They were not formatted the way you like or the way you have reformatted the others on this page. If you have a problem with the formatting, this is where you should discuss it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You are.. ridiculous. -- Noj r (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Grade 5 all over again! --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

List Of punk-Ish bands?

Wow... Why does it seem that everyone on your talk page is mad at you.... Hm. Ok so I found the List of Christian punk bands and much to my dismay I discovered that it interferes with the list of christian metal bands. Anything metalcore has been put down as post-hardcore to warrent inclusion. While they might both include screams, They are different. Think you might could do something about it? DCcomicslover (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Everyone's made at me because I do so much to annoy people. :)

The very issue you mention is discussed on the article's talk page. Since I brought it up and was essentially told that if a post-hardcore source could be found, then it can stand. I suggested that the band's primary style should be reflected, but that point got no traction and WP:RS ruled the day. Feel free to resurrect the discussion on the article's talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Luiz Adriano?

Why does he deserve his full name?--Nitsansh (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's only about half of his full name...--Nitsansh (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It's how his article is done. Shouldn't this be on the article's talk page and not mine? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Hello

Please note that in future requests for page protection should be reported at WP:RFPP and not WP:AIV.

What I have done in this case is lock the article anyway and I've started something on the articles talk page so you can reach consensus there whilst the article is locked fully for a week. What I've not done though is block the IP because this is a content dispute not vandalism. Please use the week that the article has been locked for to reach consensus on the talk page. I will keep an eye on the article, if consensus is reached sooner than 1 week the page will be unlocked, if it's not reached in that time the expiry time will be lengthened. Any questions feel free to ask me on my talk page.--5 albert square (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. We're working on it and should have consensus by Monday. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring & other infractions

Just letting you know you've now been reported for edit warring, continual insertion of unsourced material, removal of sourced material, and continual misuse of the term 'vandalism' 86.164.71.55 (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Skillet Genre doohickey

I posted my opinions on the page. Check em out when you can. DCcomicslover (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)DCcomicslover

Re:1950 FIFA World Cup

Goal average is a different scheme that predated goal difference. Using the goal average scheme the number of goals scored is divided by the number of goals conceded. --Amit6 (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Bontq - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bontq

Hey, I've added many more sources to the article(just as you asked). Can you please approve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomassheff (talk • contribs) 10:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

maria mckee

http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/permalink.php?story_fbid=199545173395844&id=100000665281203 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motthoop (talk • contribs) 16:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Centre allignment

Please go and voice your opinion on why ceremonies should be centrally aligned please. I also think thats the best way, but a group of editors came to a consensus [1]. Intoronto1125 (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems like it was resolved before I arrived. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Add your opinion still it can be overthrown. Intoronto1125 (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullying in academia

You have had two comments in response to your discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullying in academia. --Penbat (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: 2010-11 UEFA Champions League knockout phase

Thank you very much. For next time you patrol the site though, please put arrows around our work instead of just deleting it all. It makes less work for us once the matches are over.--Nmk829 (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Since it's not supposed to be there, deleting it is the correct way of addressing the changes, but the comment marks is a good compromise. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC).

Hello ! Thank you for having corrected the stuff about North Korean goal difference in 2010. It's clearer like that. 16:18, 28 March 2011

Re: Thanks

No problemo amigo. Digirami (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Hello Walter Görlitz. Thanks for chasing the problematic edits by 138.192.121.230. You were quicker that I was in leaving warnings :-). I just wanted to let you know that I think that you were doing the right thing in leaving multiple warnings. On the other hand my experience has been that some admins don't like it when warnings are added retroactively. I think that you would have a case that these were okay since the IP was removing legitimate links - especially those to Tagore - but I don't know how a given admin would react. The other thing that I have seen is that vandalism is interpreted in different ways. Because of that I was using the warnings for blanking of content as that might more likely lead to a block should they persist. Please don't think that I am saying that you did anything wrong. I am only giving you examples of the experiences that I have had in fighting these pests. My apologies if I have caused any offense with this message. thanks for your vigilance and cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 02:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops. I forgot to mention that you also deserve thanks in dealing with the edits from Billinrio on the Philip Glass article. MarnetteD | Talk 02:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Skillet

Please see Talk:Skillet (band)#Edit warring / Genre Changes. Killiondude (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Saw it, thanks. So I suspect that if anon comes back I should notify you of breach of your notice and you'll revert? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've had Skillet on my watchlist for years. I'm fairly certain I can spot if and when anything happens. Thank you though. Killiondude (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

A7 speedy

I saw you having some discussions about Write This Down (band), and thought I would try to help you with your confusion. A7 doesn't have anything to do with meeting notability guidelines. It sets a far lower standard of having no credible claim of importance. That's a very weak standard, and showing that two albums have been released on Tooth&Nail records is more than enough to cross it. I'm well known as a hard-core deletionist, and I wouldn't process an A7 on that article.—Kww(talk) 17:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

But there's only one EP and one album, which is really also an EP. Even in the 70s, it would have been considered an EP, although it could have been considered an album by length in the 50s or the 60s. This is my point. They don't have two full-length albums. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree that they may fail WP:BAND. They probably do. That doesn't have anything to do with CSD:A7 though. A7 doesn't have anything to do with notability criteria, it only requires one credible claim of importance. If they contain anything that is a credible claim of importance, it has to be processed through PROD or AFD, not CSD.—Kww(talk) 18:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:PROD, which includes "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking or obvious vandalism. If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, or that the article should be deleted but with discussion, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion."

It was improper of you to restore the PROD tag. They basically cannot be restored once removed.—Kww(talk) 19:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We were all new at some time, so don't worry about not knowing all the rules. I've even encountered some established users who weren't familiar with PROD guidelines. PROD is pretty much useless unless you're somewhat sure no one cares about it being deleted (or no one's watching). AFD is your last venue for deletion at this point. Killiondude (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems that someone with conflict of interest (the guy appears to be the A&R person for the label) can come and create pages and they can be prevented from being deleted for any reason. I think I'll create some pages of obscure bands and use the same logic. You can nominate the article since like so many other things, it's easy to make rules, but not easy to make sure they're observed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You are just encountering the reasons that I gave up on PROD. CSD works pretty well when it actually meets CSD criteria (your problem here is that it didn't). Once a CSD fails, going straight to AFD is the only reasonable approach. The very fact that someone created the article means that someone will probably remove the PROD, and once that happens, you have to go to AFD. AFD really isn't that difficult, and it tends to work more reliably.—Kww(talk) 21:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Xavi

Hey man, thanks for doing the revert for me on 2010 FIFA World Cup Final. This particular anon seems to have a habit of using various IPs to change the names of a number of Barcelona and Spain players, e.g. Oleguer → Oleguer Presas, Maxwell → Maxwell Andrade, Pedro → Pedro Rodriguez. I've tried corresponding with the user, but since he keeps changing his IP, I doubt that's going to have any effect. Nevertheless, I suggest you keep your eyes open on the World Cup Final article (as I know you do anyway), as it's extremely likely that he'll be back in a few hours. – PeeJay 15:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Walter Görlitz. You have new messages at Cindamuse's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

German club names

Fair enough. I'll revert that part then. – PeeJay 19:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

World Cup Names

Can you please explain to me exactly what's going on with edit history of the pages like this one: 2009 UEFA Super Cup? I'm assuming you guys have a good reason why you're reverting these constant changes, and reverting the anon's changes -- but I'd like to know why, as they seem relatively harmless to me. Thanks! Gscshoyru (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

They're not his name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah. That would be a good reason then. Thanks for clearing that up :) Gscshoyru (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Silverline and Write This Down (band)

Sorry for not responding right away to the message you put on my talk page. I appreciate your understanding and willingness to help. In fact, there are many uncreated articles that I have intentions of creating and may need some help on. However, I would just like to say one thing. You said on my talk page that you put the Wikipedia rules first. This is fine, but if you put the rules first, put all the rules first. Do not replace PRODs; do not nominate articles of albums and EPs for speedy deletion until after the artist article is gone; and don't nominate articles that still have a "newpage" tag. --Djc wi (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You're correct. I shouldn't replace prods. I discussed that with another editor. What you're not allowed to delete, and what I confused it with, was articles for deletion, which is what the article became. I was actually warned not to do that in the past and now I recognize that there's a difference, although there shouldn't be. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Thanks for understanding. --Djc wi (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Calvary

Walter - didn't mean to snap - no excuse other than pride. I appologize. Ckruschke (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

No apology required. I didn't read your response in context. If I had I would have understood it correctly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool! Ckruschke (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Camilo or Camilo Sanvezzo

Judging by your edit history, I believe you are the guy who looks after Whitecaps articles so I have a question to you before a potential edit war. How do you feel about potential name change from Camilo to Camilo Sanvezzo? He uses his surname on his match jersey and Whitecaps official site lists him as Camilo Sanvezzo. Utinsh (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Violet UML Editor

Hello Walter, since Wikipedia would like WP:WTAF on all pages, I quicly made the "article" Violet UML Editor and filled Violet UML Editor/Contact Us form, asking them to verify the table, and now the article. Is that OK ? Nicolas.dh 22:54, 29 March 2011 (DST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolas.dh (talk • contribs)

Sorry for the inconvenience, since I can not delete the Violet UML Editor article myself, please do... Nicolas.dh (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No inconvenience. I can place a speedy delete on the article if you want. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:

The only reason it was reverted is the IP has a vendetta against me, apparently, because I reverted an unconstructive edit of his, after which he tagged me with a vandalism tag. Toa Nidhiki05 21:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I realized that after I applied the CN, but it's still needed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Here you go. Toa Nidhiki05 21:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

On the article please. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Chris the Speller's apparent corrections, and my obvious incorrect application of rules

No, "critically-acclaimed" is absolutely not an improvement over "critically acclaimed". Stop now. Chris the speller ^yack 21:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No one said it was an improvement. It is correct, while your "fix" isn't. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not correct. The hyphen is not needed after an adverb that ends in "ly" in a compound modifier. Jamming hyphens in where they are not needed is not "correct". Chris the speller ^yack 21:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It was explained to you on your talk page. It is correct. Your change is not. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You really should stop the reversions now. Chris the speller ^yack 21:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. All of your "fixes" have been restored to the correct use. I suggest you take it up with a group who can weigh-in on the matter. Two of us agree that you're wrong. It's the way I was taught and when you made the change to two articles I watched I came to complain on your talk page only to find that someone had beaten me to it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I will get back to you. I have places to go right now. Chris the speller ^yack 21:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I was out gardening between rain showers. This discussion will not take place on my talk page. It needs to be brought to the attention of a group who cares about such matters. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to read the comment by ShelfSkewed on my talk page (I did not contact this user). By the way, some of the compound modifiers where you reinserted hyphens were not followed by nouns, so those edits were doubly wrong. At least I looked at each article before removing hyphens. Chris the speller ^yack 22:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:HYPHEN, which states "A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb". When you have digested this, please let me know so I can go back to fixing such articles. Chris the speller ^yack 00:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that "critically" is a non-standard -ly adverb or that it could be ?mistaken for a adjective? OK. I've undone all the undo. Go on making the rest of your changes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. "Critically is a *standard* -ly adverb, formed by adding "ly" to "critical". You can take that one to the bank. Happy editing! Chris the speller ^yack 01:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Walter, I been confounded by some of the rules, myself, and have found that the best way to look at them is to check the WP:MOS, which clearly proscribes hyphen use following an "ly" adverb. Personally, I don't consider exceptions unless they're codified in the rules; it's safer that way. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 02:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

gunnersaurus

With respect, the article should have just been reverted back to the redirect when the copyvio was noticed. Notifying Mil Falcon also probably was not the most useful thing, since he wasn't the one who made the recent copyvio content, and he has been blocked for quite a while now. I have redirected the article again to Arsenal. Syrthiss (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I just do what Twinkle tells me. Sorry. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a prob, just wanted to give you guidance if you did that consciously. Syrthiss (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

List of Christian punk bands

There's a little conflict on the talk page over there, specifically regarding Blessthefall's Christianity. I think the sources don't completely support it, but 3family6 opted out of the discussion and I'd like at least one other editor's approval before I remove them. If you have time, can you drop by to check out the arguments and let me know what you think?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hyland (band)

I have just finished creating a user page for a Christian band and was about to make it into an article, but before I started another AfD war like I did with Silverline and Write This Down (band), I thought I'd get some opinions by other users first. What do you think? Does this page meet WP:BAND? --Djc wi (talk) 04:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. First album from them on a major label. Just setting-out on a minor tour with Fireflight. The "Alternative Press' latest issue as 100 Bands to Watch" may be a feature to mention. Don't know if they meet WP:BAND yet though. Might want to ask at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) since it's too close for me to call, particularly when the tour is most notable for the theft of the band's trailer. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

They said it doesn't, although only one person commented and didn't mention Criterion 4 at all. --Djc wi (talk) 06:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the page since the discussion, adding in information, and I'm almost positive it meets Criteria 4 and 12 of WP:BAND. Could you take one last look and tell me what you think? --Djc wi (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Fairly weak points, but it may fly. You might want to unlink the redlinks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks for your help. --Djc wi (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Project 86 Randy (band)

This is Randy Torres. I am not in the band anymore. I would like to take my name off current members —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.116 (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't change anything without a reference. If you have a band press release or can point to a Facebook or Twitter update that indicates that you've left the band, we could use that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Minor edit war on Talk:Kutless

I noticed that you repeatedly removed that one chatty thread from what looks like an ip user who posted it twice, then reverted another editor who re-inserted it. Although it was likely okay to remove it (it's probably irrelevant, but I'm not well-versed in the article's subject matter), I'd strongly suggest against reverting someone who thinks that it is, indeed, relevant—that is, unless it falls under an an exemption to the three revert rule. Keep in mind that talk pages are the main way people on Wikipedia are able to communicate, so contributions to them tend to be treated with a little bit more sanctity; people may view removal of what they think are relevant concerns as someone else taking away their voice. :\

As for users who make chatty additions to talk pages, I'd strongly suggest dropping {{subst:Uw-chat1}} on their User talk pages whenever you remove any of their content from a discussion page; otherwise, they might go, "dude, wtf? where'd my comment go? Guess something went wrong...I'll post it again."

Anyway, cheers. :) --slakr^\ talk / 03:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't want to warn the editor, but could have with Twinkle. I pointed the editor to the policy, but was planning on putting the chat1 template if the editor restored the inappropriate talk again. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Archiving talk pages

So, I was looking at my talk page and noticed it was starting to get a little long. I think it should be archived, but I don't know how to do that. How do you archive talk pages? --Djc wi (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm old school. I just move my talk page then delete the redirect over the old talk page. Help:Archiving a talk page gives more ideas. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Djc wi (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Kutless as emo

I hate to bother you again, but I left a comment on the List of Christian punk bands talk page contesting your refusal to accept the mention of them in Falling Up's AllMusic bio as "metal-tinged emo" as a reliable source. If you could take the time to respond to it, I would very much appreciate it.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Poema (musical group)

I found another Tooth & Nail act called Poema. At first I thought that there was no way they would make WP:BAND until I found out that they played every date of the 2010 Warped Tour. So I made a user page. I mentioned the Warped Tour, which I believe meets Criterion 4, but why don't you take a look at it and tell me what you think. --Djc wi (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I Know the band. Two albums on T&N. They qualify. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Article is up along with projects released. --Djc wi (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedian using two accounts

I believe that there is user on Wikipedia using two accounts. One is an IP address, and another is a registered account. Is there some tag or notification that I can place on the page of one of them, or some way I can report this to an administrator? --Djc wi (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You can initiate a sockpuppet investigation. An admin will check if the IP is the same as the one for the user and if it is, an investigation will go forward. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Djc wi (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

So, what happens now? Will someone contact me if the investigation moves forward, or will I be left out of it? --Djc wi (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You likely have to follow the investigation page. The admins don't usually contact the reporters. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for removing those duplicate refs that I made on the 2011 Major League Soccer season page. I wasn't sure how to make them all one. Now I have learned. ;) Thanks again. Acmilan10italia (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Mine was the easy part. Thanks for adding them! --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Anthem Lights

Another user page. This one is for a new group on Reunion Records called Anthem Lights. I'm pretty sure they meet Criteria 1, 2, and 4 of WP:BAND. Any improvement advice before I move it, or reason I shouldn't move it? --Djc wi (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, that could work because of the national tour. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Djc wi (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle

Hi Walter. I have removed your access to the anti-vandalism tool Twinkle. This is because you have been abusing it, using it to revert edits which are not vandalism (please review the the definition of vandalism at WP:VAND). The edits you were undoing were correct edits, removing a possible violation of vandalism by yourself. Continuing to revert these edits (especially if you continue to do so in a manner which suggests the other party are somehow vandals) will result in you being blocked for breaking copyright rules. You may continue to use Twinkle once you have demonstrated an understanding of vandalism and it becomes apparent that you will not use this tool incorrectly, as you have done. Thanks for your understanding, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying Delta wasn't acting in good faith in his removal of your copyright violations? Or that it's a good thing for us to have copyright rule violations in articles? Or both? Or neither even? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

First, they're not copyright violations. They're interpreted as copyright violations. He interprets the copyright rules differently than I do. But this isn't about the interpretations of the alleged copyright violations, they're about my access to Twinkle so please don't change the subject. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you answer my questions though? I don't feel I can properly re-assess the question of your access to Twinkle until I have more knowledge of your stance on the issues involved, which means you letting me know your position on the subjects I mentioned in my questions. Thanks - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I can, but it's not relevant to the question at hand so I won't. I won't mark the actions of other valued editors as vandalism. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well you certainly won't be with Twinkle, since your access has no chance of being restored until you fully explain your reasoning for marking those edits as vandalism. the issue of why you marked Delta's edits as vandalism is entirely relevant. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought I did. The reason was that Delta refused to discuss, explain, or elaborate on the copyright policy that was being incorrectly applied to the article. That lack of willingness to discuss, explain, or elaborate, which I've encountered before and was well aware of, was interpreted as vandalism since that's what vandals frequently do. I now realize it's not up to delta to explain his actions but it's up to me to find out what the copyright group means when they tag an article correctly or incorrectly with any issue and then either correct my understanding of the interpretation of the rules or theirs. Wikipedia is meant to be a place of collaborative effort not the domain of a single editor. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Again your mistaken, I did not make the initial removal J Milburn did. So you are reverting two users who you know understand the NFC policy better than you. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 21:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information Delta, but the original change was made. I reverted explaining that the article is not a discography and attempting to correct the misinterpretation. I believe that your multiple, rapid reverts contributed to the misunderstanding. You warned (it turns out an admin found your interpretation of that rule mis-placed as well and dismissed your request to have me banned for reverting) rather than discussing. I realize that I must discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Görlitz (talk • contribs)

The admin at AIV wasn't saying that you were correct. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

So do you think that Delta was acting in good faith when he removed the images? Also, do you think it's acceptable to complain about him not discussing when every time he's attempted to leave you a message you've reverted him? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

He was acting in good faith based in what I believe is a misinterpretation of the rules.

I believe it is my responsibility to discuss edits made. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand that a good faith edit is never vandalism? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In relationship to Wikipedia I believe that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith.

In relationship to Wikipedia I believe most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were false, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.

In relationship to Wikipedia I believe that this does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence.

In relationship to Wikipedia I believe assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism but that editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice.

In relationship to Wikipedia I believe that when disagreement occurs, editors should try, to the best of our individual abilities, to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind and to look for ways to reach consensus. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That's all fine and dandy, and sounds good. However, do you understand that a good faith edit is never vandalism? Also, do you now understand the reason for Delta's revert, and accept it was correct and the right interpretation of policy? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Good faith edits are never vandalism and vandalism are never good faith edits. As for Delta's edits, if the page is a discography, they would have been a correct interpretation of policy. However, as Delta's edits have been partially undone by another editor, I feel that I have a partially correct understanding of the status of the article. So, in the case of this article, neither my actions nor Delta's were 100% correct. I understand that discussion should be entered before wildly entering an edit war with any editor. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You're still completely failing to admit to being wrong (which you were), and instead trying to twist things to make it seem like you are right. For example, earlier you said that the admin at AIV said Delta was wrong, which they didn't say at all. Now you're saying the changes were partially reverted showing that Delta was only partially correct, even though the user "partially reverting" the change said clearly that "Delta is quite right." Your refusal to admit to being wrong isn't inspiring confidence in me. It may not seem like it, but I will be very happy to restore your access. However, before I do I need you to demonstrate the ability to admit when you mess up, and discuss properly. That means you (a) accept you were wrong here, (b) admit that you also shouldn't have removed Delta's messages and then complained about him not discussing and (c) show you understand when to use the rollback (VANDAL) - which conceding that Delta was acting in good faith and that you shouldn't revert good faith edits as vandalism has helped - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(a) I messed-up and will discuss things with editors in the future, if I continue to edit on Wikipedia. That being said editors and admins like you who are completely unfair make it so that editors like me who are trying to apply the rules as we see them (b) I read Delta's warnings on my talk page and exercised my prerogative to remove his warnings. (c) I should not revert good faith edits and mark them as vandalism. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I have this feeling you're just saying what I want to hear, which is fair enough, it at the very least demonstrates you are, in fact, not too proud to admit to being wrong, which is great. A few minutes ago that would have probably been enough for me to restore your access, however, lets now see how the ANI thread you just started goes and if those there agree with me that the original removal was justified, and that your comments here following that demonstrate that it should be restored. Also, removing a message on your talk page is allowed, and that is fine. Complaining after doing so that the user who left the message did not attempt to discuss with you is not fine. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear. We'll wait to see what happens with the ANI thread. Thanks for taking the time with this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I never said that they where copyright violations. I stated that they violated our WP:NFCC policy. Also I was not the one who made the original removal so at least two users who are both very familiar with the NFCC policy agreed that they should be removed. yet you who have admitted to not understanding policy just blindly reverts reinserting the violations. Just be lucky that you have not been blocked yet. Not commenting on your actions that led to TW being removed as they are not relevant to the question at hand is BS. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Same difference. Obscure rules again. Mu. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If the police pull you over going 25kph over the speed limit and then the judge revokes your drivers license, when you appeal you need to address the issues related to the fact that you are going 25kph over the speed limit. Not that just that you find driving easier than the alternatives. This is the same thing. You need to address the real issue and not dance around it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting metaphor. Or is it an analogy?

If a police officer were to pull me over for going above the speed limit and gave me a ticket for said offence, I would not appear before this officer in the court, except possibly a police state. the officer would attend the hearing and provide the court with evidence. I would also be permitted to provide evidence to the same judge. One time when I was told that I was speeding the judge told the officer that not all of the correct information was provided to me and then the judge quashed the ticket. I was free to go. Upon leaving, the officer told me that he would give me a new ticket with all of the information, so I had to find the judge again who sat the office down and explained to him the fine points of his ruling while informing me that while he explained the information that I should leave in order to avoid the action from the officer.

So if you would like to take that metaphor, you are acting as an officer, a judge and the jury and I have no recourse to appeal the decision. So once again, mu. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

---

I've given your access to Twinkle back (please see the ANI discussion). This is with the understanding that you will now apply it correctly, by "correctly" I mean:

• You understand that in this case (as well as others) you may have been incorrect about the NFCC policy, and that it is always best to discuss rather than edit warring in this area.
• You understand that good faith edits are excluded from "vandalism," and Twinkle should not be used to revert them under vandalism.
• You understand that Twinkle should not be used to edit war, as you've used it to do in the past - especially when you are on the "wrong" side of a NFCC debate (by "wrong" I mean the side which is for the debatable content, it's always best to play better safe than sorry with NFCC).
• You understand that when another user says you've used Twinkle incorrectly, it is not appropriate to revert what they said using Twinkle, and then later complain that they never discussed the issue with you - instead, discuss!

If you continue to use this tool incorrectly in the future, it will be removed again, as it was this time around - this seems fair to me, and I hope you think the same. I hope you also learn from this whole incident that NFCC may not mean quite what you think, and you'll achieve a better result by discussing with the users involved rather than reverting their edits - they will almost certainly know more about NFCC than either you (or me!).
Now I've got that over with, I just want to say good luck with Twinkle, and thanks for not blowing your top at any point throughout this, I'm sure my stubborn ways have been more than frustrating, so thanks for allowing this to reach a satisfactory conclusion :). Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. But I did blow my top several times, I just didn't reflect that in my edits since I've learning it's not productive, and actually counter-productive. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Cover images

I've restored one of the images at Live at Gray Matters, and added a brief description that indicates that the other three are identical except for color. Do not restore other three. Delta is quite right about them being a WP:NFCC violation, and continuing to restore them will result in you being blocked from editing until you agree to stop.—Kww(talk) 22:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I wouldn't think of restoring them to that article again. I intend to create four new articles: one for each album in the series and apply the appropriate image to those. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• That would make sense IF all four have independent notability away from their inclusion in a set. If. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

IF you say so. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Lewis & Rowling

I've added to the section you recently edited and tagged a second redirect to the separate article Religion in The Chronicles of Narnia where all the generalizations are reasserted and cited. All that material used to be in the main article Chronicles of Narnia and was recently split off (see WP:SPLIT) by another editor who did a massive overhaul of the whole Chronicles article. What remains is a skeleton summary of what has now been split off.

Frankly, although Lewis is very popular among evangelical Christians, I think it would be more appropriate to describe Lewis as Anglo-Catholic rather than evangelical. Rowling is what would be described as a liberal or "Broad Church" Christian. I have rephrased to note simply that she is a member of the Church of Scotland. Since the main point of the paragraph is that there have both been Christians who have reacted somewhat negatively (Rowling) and non-Christians who have reacted positively (Laura Miller) to the Narnia books, some mention of JKR's affiliation needs to be in there.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Must capitalize "The" in Religion in The Chronicles of Narnia for link to work. SHould probably create a redirect.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Why point to a redirect page?

In answer to your comment and "fix" on Expo Line disambig. Please see: leave redirects alone. Up to you if you want to change back. I'm just slogging through the link updating for Expo Line. Lexlex (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the lesson. You should have read to the end: "In many cases it is preferable to change redirected links in navigational templates". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You also created the redirect specifically for this purpose. What a waste. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's odd to me that you maintain a rather dismissive and testy style in your written communication. What gives? I don't get it. In any case, as I mentioned: Do what you want. I was attempting to answer your question. Goodnight! Lexlex (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not dismissive. It's informative. Didn't mean to come off as dismissive. You did answer the question without implicating yourself as the creator of an unnecessary redirect. Thanks again. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Write This Down (band)

A notation that an individual is from America or an American, requires disambiguation to indicate the America spoken of is the United States. The status of America or American is not fully known worldwide to indicate citizens of the United States. Not emphasizing (or wikilinking) nationality is contrary to the guidelines for biographies. It is possible that you are confusing this with the guidelines for an individual's ethnicity, which is not emphasized in the lede. Additionally, an individual's former nationality, or country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence, unless it is key to the subject's notability. Keep in mind that an assertion based on other stuff exists is not sufficient. For more information, please review the Manual of Style guidelines for biographies found here. Based on the guidelines for biographies, I've reverted your dab work in the above mentioned article. Feel free to contact me if you have questions. Cind.amuse 15:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Of the WP:MOSBIO examples two link to nationality, one is ancient Egypt, one is Italy and the other doesn't link Mexican or American.

My examples are The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, etc. and have a precedent beyond these articles. Fix those first and then fix this article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Walter, you can't use the argument that other stuff exists. This is inappropriate. "Fix those first and then fix this article?" Again, inappropriate. We are not addressing The Beatles, Bob Dylan, or Bruce Springsteen. And precedence means nothing when they conflict with policies and/or guidelines. Nationality or citizenship is clearly placed and wikilinked in the lede. Disambiguation is necessary to differentiate with other Americas. Please note that reverting compliant edits constitutes vandalism, and accordingly, it would be appropriate to restore. That said, I am not vested highly in this article, so it's easier to walk away. Sometimes, in the end, this is the better choice. Please note, in the examples given at WP:OPENPARA, ancient Egypt is the Queen's nationality; Italian refers to the nationality of Petrarch; Mexican American is an ethnic descriptive and is appropriately not wikilinked; and the President of France is a governmental role, rather than a nationality, yet clearly indicates citizenship. You have specifically stated that nationalities are not emphasized in the lede. Honestly, this statement is not in compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines. Really, I can't spend anymore time on this, since my priority is working with PPI students, with the end of the semester quickly approaching. I was sidetracked and thought to cleanup and restructure the Write This Down (band) article, bringing it into compliance to avert further deletions. I certainly didn't expect compliance to be reverted. With that said, I'll go back to my Ambassador role now. Many blessings, Cind.amuse 18:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's precedent. It's not appropriate to link. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: G. Craige Lewis

I added citations to article. How many links does an article need before it is no longer considered an orphan? I honestly need your help with that question. Thanks.Aliveangles (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It needs links to articles, not editors' talk pages. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I got ya. Thanks!Aliveangles (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. It needs to be linked-to from other articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

PlantUML add

Hello,

I've just create the PlantUML article. Is it possible to restore your change from List_of_Unified_Modeling_Language_tools ? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantuml (talk • contribs) 20:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really. The product doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Lets talk Whitecaps

Walter, if you'll humor me, I'd like to discuss Whitecaps history with you. Ultimately I hope what we chat about can resolve the issue of when exactly the Vancouver team playing in MLS was founded (because I consider that important)...but also along the way I'd like to learn more about general history of the Whitecaps that has become so controversial here. First off I was wondering if you'd be willing share your views on this with me. I was never really apart of the original discussion to merge or keep separate the D2 and MLS Whitecaps articles and some of your stronger points can get lost amongst the extensive discussion that took place. You'd liked to see the D2 and MLS Caps to be referred to as the same club because you see it as a league change and nothing more, correct? Do you feel the NASL Whitecaps are the very same club as the D2 Whitecaps or two different entities that share a name? Just wanted to get some obvious points out of the way before we hopefully talk about this some more. Thanks! --Blackbox77 (talk) 06:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Should I assume you're just not interested in discussing this? --Blackbox77 (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much. Regardless of my opinion, there is a editor of North American football articles who will impose his will on the articles. European leagues have many precedents where the clubs have changed ownership after financial ruin and they retain the club name and history, but the precedent for MLS leagues are that they are new legal entities and that seems to be more important. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your honesty because I'm sure it's a tiring issue. I really do hope these lineages and founding dates are resolved one day because I find their accuracy pretty important. I've done what research I can on the topic but I'm no Vancouverite and I'm certainly not a life-long Whitecaps fan who might be in a better position to know such things. I've come to the conclusion that there are at least two indisputably separate incarnations of the Whitecaps: the NASL Whitecaps and the modern day MLS Whitecaps via the 86ers. Studying archived websites and newspaper reports, I really cannot see a clear connection between NASL Caps and 86ers/Caps other than a shared name and - initally - a few players (which is really just circumstantial). But starting with the 86ers to present day, there is a real year-to-year linage and ownership succession. According to early USL Whitecaps websites, they note the symbolic history shared with the NASL but claimed their current club started as the 86ers. They even get into listing previous owners by name. Now if there is a greater connection between the NASL and D2 Whitecaps, I would love some greater incite. Is there something more connecting the two? I'm sure there is a lot from that era that simply cannot be found on the web.

As for connecting the MLS Whitecaps to their D2 incarnation, I generally agree with your position. If ownership, club structure, management, etc. are essentially all carried over (as the Whitecaps claim it to be), I do not see why the MLS team is suddenly seen as a new entity. It's an established club becoming a new franchise in a different league, no? For me the single entity nature of MLS is irrelevant. Because MLS investors own a share of every team, does that mean a preexisting club can't be brought into the fold and become jointly owned as well? Where do those that claim every new team is a new legal entity draw their rule from? I feel like if we cite our sources, ask those who hold differing opinions to as well, and engage in a civil conversation, some sort of real progress can be drawn from all this. --Blackbox77 (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There are more connections between the NASL Whitecaps and the 86ers. Most of the back-room staff stayed with the new club. The owner, and some of the coaching staff all departed. The current owner had to buy the name back from the NASL owner, which I'm sure you've read. Very much like the story of European clubs. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Early archived Whitecaps websites do refer to the 86ers (and therefore themselves) as a new "club" so I do find that gap in history pretty confusing. Is just similar back-room staff years later enough to constitute them being the same? I'm just coming into this with an open mind and going by what I read so I definitely do not mean to incite an argument. Are there sources from that time period that you draw from? These are definitely points worth citing. And separate from all this, I'll assume you don't dispute much with what I said concerning MLS connections. --Blackbox77 (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the break between the NASL and 86ers years is clear. The 86ers had the spirit of the former club, they were more of the remnants of the Whitecaps going in a new direction. The crowds were much smaller as was the payroll. I don't agree with a break between the USL and MLS Whitecaps though. However, I'm not planning on starting that debate again since I seem to be in the minority. As soon as someone mentions that they're the same Sounders and Timbers editors show up and start to tell us we're wrong. What they really mean to say is that their teams are not the same and so it's not fair for Vancouver to call themselves the same club even though there's much more evidence that they are. The only things that indicates that they're a different club is the MLS single entity legal structure. I am convinced that if the MLS experiment ends the Whitecaps will continue in one way or another. They are also at the fore in breaking down some of the rules such as the MLS holding the player contracts rather than the clubs. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed that the Whitecaps have 1974 on the back of their jerseys. It's on the top of the collar. Can't find a picture on-line. This is a Canadian championship match, so I'll have to watch in the next MLS match. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that 1974 has always been on the back - not just for the NCC. Unfortunately I think it will be easy to argue the current club is simply "adopting" the history of the older one (like how the new Cosmos aren't really the new Cosmos). We'd probably need something more to really verify this if it was true. Even if they claim the history for themselves now, at one point in time they didn't so it still remains debatable for some. Convincing others of a NASL-86ers connection will be tough. I think it will be easier to argue USL-MLS connection. Points like MLS' single entity are moot. There is precedent for independent clubs joining a single entity league in other sports (like the modern day Arena Football League). That point - along with the very clear ownership and front office succession - should make for a more convincing argument for the time being. The original discussion on the USL Whitecaps page mostly took place before they had their full-fledge website and played their first game. I think revisiting this issue could be worthwhile. --Blackbox77 (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Back of jersey pic --Blackbox77 (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Bayern Munich

What are your thoughts on requesting semi-protection until July 1? Erikeltic ^(Talk) 14:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the request can be made, but I suspect that response may be that it's being handled by existing editors. I can make the application if you would like. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I just made it. Hopefully this will curb some of these anonymous edits. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 14:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

2022 FIFA World Cup

I don't want to be revert warring, but the reference doesn't actually support the allegiation made (it just mentions "odd vote patterns"), and it seems to be a blog entry (judging from the e-mail address at the end). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Boundary-value analysis, Merger proposal

Please can you close the stale merge proposal at Talk:Boundary-value analysis#Merger proposal. These proposals should be dealt with in a month or so, not left lying around for more than two years: apart from anything else the proposal will tend to inhibit further editing. Clearly the result will be "no merge". Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to close it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I will do it "soon", when convenient. --Mirokado (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Morfaw

Walter, what the hell are you talking about? The guy added some info to the page. I deleted it saying "broke the link/relevance" - meaning that it broke the link citation context, and I didn't think it was relevant. There are recentism issues, it wasn't his pro debut, so I was WP:BOLD and took it out because I din't think there was an improvement to the article. If that's "page ownership" then by your standards no-one would ever edit a page again. If you want it back, go ahead and put it back, but quit accusing me of shit I didn't do. You've done it far too many times already and I'm getting sick of it. JonBroxton (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. He inserted it between the citation and the material it cited. That broke the link and the new information was not relevant to citation. Then you come back and remove the information because it's not important. Just remove it the first time with the second reason. It just avoids confusion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of Twinkle rollback (again)

Walter, Fences&Windows mentioned this in passing at WT:WikiProject Football, I just wanted to give you a proper warning here. If you continue to use Twinkle to revert edits which are vandalism, it will be removed. This kind of thing is entirely inappropriate and needlessly bitey (regardless of context), especially when you don't appear to have a policy to back up your edit, despite your insistence on the user's talkpage (using WP:VAND as a backup policy to deal with edits you don't like is poor form). Last time I removed your Twinkle access, everybody agreed you'd misused it, you only got it back because you seemed to understand that. Every further abuse, such as the one linked to, is just proving that wrong, I'd much prefer if you'd prove it right. This is just a warning, but please take note, and try to improve your communication, especially with newer users. Calling them vandals and edit warring as if you own the article is not helping in that regard. Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I responded to this but Wikipedia went down afterwards. You are assuming that I was not acting in good faith. There is a policy that matches should not be updated. The editor in question has been warned several times not to break that policy. The editor refuses to discuss the issue and so I politely warn the user and then apply harsher measures. Is there a problem with this?

The fact that a few other editors have taken offence to this informal policy of the football group has essentially stopped this process until a new consensus has been reached. This is correct procedure isn't it?

Once the discussion ends on the football page, we will take it to the next level.

If you continue to hound me, I will be forced to take action. It is particularly disturbing that you don't assume good faith on my part when you accuse me of doing the same to others.

Are you hounding me or is this a good faith discussion you're entering into? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't own any articles. You should know that's not possible. I don't even act like it. My actions on that article were a reflection of the informal policy of the football group who are overseers of all football-related articles. If they have a problem with my actions, they should address me directly. If you have a problem with me acting in that capacity, I believe that you should take that up with the rest of the group. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly the kind of problem I'm talking about when I point you to OWN. The WikiProject are not "overseers" of football articles, and they certainly are not free to make up policy as they see fit, the wider community needs to be involved as well. In any case, maybe you should take some responsibility for your own actions rather than hiding behind the rest of the WikiProject. There is no "capacity" to act within, the project is not some kind of authoritarian regime, in future stick to actual policy and consensus, not what a small subset of users with similar biases thinks. I bring that up with you because it is again not the project's responsibility to make sure that you follow real consensus rather than them - it is yours.

No of course I'm not hounding you, I came across this through a completely different channel than following you around, I have absolutely no desire to follow you around. In fact, when I first came across this issue of adding scores to the articles at half time (about a week ago), I didn't even recognise your name at first. The claim that I am hounding you is ludicrous and completely off topic. Please consider that maybe the problem is yourself, and address that rather than throwing out wild attacks at those who bring up the problem.

I don't see how I'm not assuming good faith. Do you still think that the user's edits were vandalism, as is clearly defined at WP:VAND? (After all, this is what you called them). And what is this other policy you talk about, which I haven't yet seen you explicitly link to? Yes there is a problem applying "harser" measures, if they involve lying (even accidentally) about what the user's edits constitute. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh. So if Wikipedians are not overseers that guide projects then I can safely ignore you. Thanks for the enlightening conversation. I did nothing wrong. I acted in good faith and did not abuse my privileges with Twinkle. As far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny, but I didn't say anything like that. I said the WikiProject are not overseers, meaning, they do not, as a group, have any extra power than from the rest of the community. Wikipedians as a whole could, however, be considered overseers of articles. The point I was making is that the WikiProject doesn't have any special authority over other editors, as you seemed to think it did.

The edit was not vandalism, you called it vandalism. That. Is. Wrong. Do that again and you will have your Twinkle access removed, okay? You've done this before, and got another chance, I'm giving you yet another chance here, try not to waste it. I'm not saying you weren't acting in good faith, if I thought that you weren't, I wouldn't waste my time coming here and trying to talk to you. However, there comes a point when good faith is no longer a substitute for competence. I'm warning you here, that if you continue to misuse Twinkle that your access will be removed by me. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and scream IDIDNTHEARTHAT, then that is up to you, but it's not making your case look any better. I note you have not pointed me towards the policy, and have not explained how the vandalism policy applied to the edit you reverted, so my only conclusion can be that your edit was not supported by policy. If you want to clarify that please feel free to do so (although if you could try doing that without sarcasm, it would be much appreciated, since that sort of petty lashing out is really not doing much for either of us, in the long run). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

As I perceived it at the time, it was vandalism and so I was right to use Twinkle the way I did. I will continue to treat perceived vandalism as such. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I perceived it as a correct action. I'm sure I could find many other editors who perceive it as a correct action. Three editors to date perceive it as an incorrect action. Seems that we're in a grey area and so the stick your waiving at me is a bit too large for the situation. The fact that I'm actually discussing whether it's a correct action or not speaks volumes. Feel free to join that discussion, but the on on this talk page is over as far as I'm concerned. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You're actually discussing are you? Is that what "I can safely ignore you", and "the matter is closed" was all about? It is not a "grey area" if that was vandalism or not, what is the grey area is if we wanted the scores there. Whatever the case maybe regarding that, it does not change the fact that the edit you reverted as vandalism was not vandalism. How does it make any difference if we discuss it here or there? The issue I am discussing with you here is about your own behaviour, your talk page is the correct place for that. The issue of you repeatedly using Twinkle to incorrectly accuse others of vandalism and edit war is distinct from the issue of if we want to include scores at half-time. Please answer my questions: Are you saying that Ajj1192 was acting in bad faith with the intent to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia? Can you please point me towards the policy you kept talking about on their talk page and here? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not discussing the issue of whether what I did was vandalism or not with you. You're not willing to discuss anything. You're only willing to dictate terms.

As it stands, it was a good faith edit and I had no intention of compromising the integrity of Wikipedia.

As it stands, i was interpreting the rules of Wikipedia as I understood them at the time. The fact that this is under debate means it is a grey area. I'm sorry that you don't see it that way. Good day. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to discuss, could you please answer the questions? I don't disagree that you were acting in good faith, or that you had no intention of compromising the integrity of Wikipedia. I've never said you did, or weren't. It is not under debate if the edit was vandalism: it is under debate if the edit was correct or not. And that is the grey area, again, this is distinct from if it was vandalism. Would you agree with me on that? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ajj1192 refused, and probably continues to refuse to discuss his edits after repeated warnings to comply with a policy. His edits indicate a disregard for that policy. What would you call that? The only thing I can tell you is that my action was done in good faith based on the policies as I perceived them at the time and I did not abuse Twinkle at that time. Since your primary claim is that I don't know what vandalism is explain these edits

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=432001811 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=432234233 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=432271556

And if you feel so inclined, look at all of the other edits made with twinkle since your warnings in April. See how often I used it "incorrectly" as you perceive as opposed to how many times I used it correctly. I acted in good faith on that one edit on the Champion's League article even if you don't think I did. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

So if I make three good blocks I can block you? No, obviously not. This is not to say however that you do not do good work, and I appreciate that, but it is not a license to ignore issues. Anyway, it's apparent that you're not willing to discuss this seriously with me. Please see this ANI thread. Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

trimming

Joseph Widney went from this [2] to this [3] with my trimming. Collect (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Amazing! --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Widney almost got to "good article" level after the trimming! On this one, I removed a lot of blockquotes and stuff which is there because someone found it and put it in <g> rather than looking to make it a "biography". Anyway - down 20K and your turn. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

edit war?

not sure how you perceive adding an RS as edit warring. It's not helpful to make such accusations. Are you disputing the sources that are provided? Do you require more? if so please state your case on the article talk page and I will address your concerns. --Semitransgenic (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm simply commenting that you've made more that three edits in twenty-four hours to change that term. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, and I am simply commenting that it would be healthier to discuss the change i made before accusing me of warring, the decision was based on common usage of the term in question.

For example

"minimal music" v "minimalist music," common usage survey based on search hits.

google -> 872000 to 217000

google books -> 10400 to 2870

google scholar -> 1010 to 596

JSTOR -> 212 TO 126

Perspectives of New Music (journal sample) -> 15 to 5

--Semitransgenic (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

First, it's not an accusation, it's an observation. Yuo have been edit warring on the article, and the term is just one part of it.

On Wikipedia the article is minimalist music, and I agree that's what it should be called. That's what my professors made reference to. So Unless you get the article changed, I suggest that you take your so-called (which is the correct spelling of it) minimal music and introduce it to the editors of that article rather than fighting on the periphery of the subject. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Knock knock. Who's there? Philip Glass. Knock knock. Who's there? Philip Glass. Knock knock. Who's there? Philip Glass. Knock knock. Who's there? Philip Glass. Knock knock. Who's there? John Adams. Aaargh! JonBroxton (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC) <-- minimalist joke.

2011 Stanley Cup riot

I agree with your edit summary here. But that does not explain why you restored the content. Beyond the fact that these may be minors, naming them here runs afoul of WP:BLP. It is not our place to participate in cyber-vigilantism directly, nor is it our place to spread the word of websites dedicated to the same. And, since we both agree that it is illegal to give the names of minors charged with crimes, and there is a good possibility we may do so in this case, I have again removed that content. Please do not restore. Resolute 03:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You may agree with the summary, but you don't understand it. They cannot be minors if they are named. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No, they can be named until the point they are charged with a crime. But this is not withstanding the fact that Wikipedia should not be the place to permanently shame otherwise non-notable individuals. Resolute 13:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No they can't, although one minor asked that the publication ban be lifted so that he could apologize. Any media outlet that publishes the name of a minor can be sued and all of the names are from media outlets. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Greek primacy/Language of the New Testament

Hi. In answer to your question and revert. The reason for moving from Greek primacy to Language of the New Testament is that the content was generic material about the language of the New Testament rather than any specific relation to "Greek primacy" which in scholarly texts means dominance of Hellenistic culture in the Eastern Mediterranean, and in Wikipedia since 2007 is a neologism coined by advocates of the Peshitta for the mainstream academic consensus that the language of the New Testament is Greek. If you have a look at the two articles the reason for the material to be on Language of the New Testament should I hope become clearer. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearer? I'm concerned that you're editing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I hope it's clearer that no content has been lost, just moved. And I'm not editing the article Greek primacy your revert is still there, but I commented on talk:Greek primacy. Can you be a bit more specific about your concern? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ps. I note that you have also reverted the mainwikilink in the Language paragraph on New Testament so I have commented on Talk:New Testament. I perhaps could/should have simply moved "Greek primacy" to "Language of the New Testament" but it would have meant deleting the socio-historical Hellenism content. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Clearer is not correct usage. More clear is. I will respond at the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, you are correcting my English? You couldn't possibly be wrong could you? A grammar of the English language Edward Archibald Allen, William John Hawkins - 1903 "Some adjectives may be compared in both ways : clearer or more clear. Another way of comparing adjectives is by means of the adverbs less and least : less beautiful, least beautiful" In ictu oculi (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Complaining about your use of 1903 English in 2011. It's not wrong. I understand what it means, it just sounds stilted and wrong.

And then there's the creation of an article rather than improving an existing one, and then insisting on its use over the existing one. But that's another issue altogether. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Walter,

You could actually have apologised instead of justifying yourself. Unless you're an ESL teacher, what sounds "stilted" to you may not be the standard for English speakers worldwide. FWIW 2,750,000 Google book hits for "clearer" compared to 649,000 for "more clear" and a couple of ESL blogs suggest that no great sin has been committed by use of "clearer". As regards Talk:Greek_primacy#Rename.3F what am I supposed to say. Do you disagree with the move to Language of the New Testament? Do you want it moved back? Do you think it should have been moved first en toto, and then the unrelated Greek hellenistic material pasted back over the redirect? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

And you could learn to use modern grammar. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Ubuntu releases

Thanks for fixing up the lead para in this article. I think my change was an improvement over what was there, but your change was even better! - Ahunt (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Your change was far more important. I didn't even think about it until you mentioned it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There you go - collaboration works! - Ahunt (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Delta

Weird isn't it? I really don't know what that guy's issue is. I mean, I understand the need to keep on top of image licensing issues, but it takes less time to add the FUR than it does to template the image, remove it from the page, and notify the uploader. It would be so much easier for him to simply correct the licensing, especially when the image is clearly relevant to the page in question, as it was on the Canadian Championship page. Oh, well... JonBroxton (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Skillet (band) edit

Hello, I saw your recent edit to Skillet (band). Why was this edit reverted? Sure, the linking was incorrect (should have been to Comatose Comes Alive and Awake and Remixed EP), but the intentions were there to add the two albums. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Because EPs and live albums are generally only added to main discographies, not discography sections. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

G. Craige Lewis

Why did you remove the DVD release information I placed on the page. You can go to the OFFICIAL EX Ministries website RIGHT NOW and see that the information I provided was Accurate. Also, why can't I put his official Twitter page on his external links because if you look at MANY other bio's, their twitters are in their external links. BiggKhrisco (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you looking for an explanation other than the one I gave in the edit summary: "future events should not be listed as they may not occur. Feel free to post once completed."? It's the only one I have to offer. It's standard practice not to include future events for this very reason. At the most, this blatant advertisement for the filming of the DVD should be made in the prose section rather than in the list of other DVD titles because there is no release date for the DVD, only for its filming. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Carman

Walter, I don't know where you got your MOS from, but I had just read the Manual of Style (lead section) as well as the Manual of Style (biographies), and they both say that the full name should go in the lead/lede. And that's why I changed it that way. And a good example would be the Elvis Presley article. Now personally, I don't agree with it, but if we're going to go according to MOS, then that's the way.

And, from my experience, a paragraph for a bio should never begin with "He" (or She) but should be the last name.

Also, Andrae was/is definitely a gospel musician. Before (and after) he became a pioneer in CCM, he was one of the main influences in what would become known as contemporary gospel. —Musdan77 (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. I though that the lede was the sentence you changed away. And for the record, Andraé is primarily gospel, but was influential in the Jesus Music scene and one of the early contemporary Christian music artists. And, yes, very influential in the creation of contemporary gospel.

However, my main objection was the imposition of the "conversion" phrase. Theologically, a Roman Catholic can't become a Christian as a result of a personal event any more than a Lutheran, Presbyterian, or any other group that practices infant baptism. So I threw the baby out with the bath water. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, Carman probably was raised Catholic as most Italians in New Jersey are. But, if that's the case, then the bio should say that. But, the way it is now works for me. —Musdan77 (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I remember hearing the Catholic thing in a live recording or something, so I don't have a ref...even the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music doesn't have a reference for it. It does mention Roman Catholic in the Carman article, but only in relationship to John Michael Talbot. The EoCCM does state, "In 1976 he accepted Christ as his personal Savior at a Disneyland concert by Andraé Crouch." I think the bio section was lifted almost word for word from that paragraph of the book, but it's been sufficiently edited over time to no longer make it a copyright violation. The sections are in the same order anyhow. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello Walter Görlitz,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 01:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)

Funny. The editor simply doesn't understand WP:ELNO and thinks that their page deserves to have social media links when it's not permitted. Oh well. The page has been reported. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand it quite well, but as Mtking said "WP:ELNO is a guideline and not a policy, as such it can be ignored", I could pursue this further by making my case on the talk page, but that's fine. The official site has the links, and if it's that big of a deal regarding social media in 2011, I'll let it go. I'm happy with the outcome. Boffo (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

You obviously don't since two other editors have shown you that you're wrong. You are such an arrogant fool it astounds me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, it's just a guideline, which can be brought up to concensus on the talk page, if I desired. You are wrong, but you will never admit it. Look at the complaints against you on your talk page, you have to archive it. Boffo (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.60.2 (talk)

Again, it's just a guideline that you don't understand any more than you understand how to spell the word consensus. Unfortunately, the weight of who is wrong is so overwhelmingly against you, yet you don't understand it.

There are so many complaints against me on this talk page because I make so many edits and occasionally get things wrong. However, in this instance I am standing on the side of the correct opinion. You, who make so few edits and don't understand anything shouldn't be lecturing me. Ever. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Ckatz for bringing some sanity into this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Éowyn (band). During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The other editor, was only blocked for 12 hours and was in clear violation of WP:ELNO. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct; but you've been blocked twice before. Do you think that's unfair? Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm actually going away for a bit, but I encourage you to seek unblock via appeal via the {{unblock}} template. I am perfectly willing to be reversed by a single administrator on this issue if your reasoning sounds good to that admin. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfair, probably not, however I edit a lot of articles and thought this one was first edited on Sunday. I misjudged. The other editor was arguing against a guideline and refused to discuss. I think that reverting their last edit would be fair though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sunday! I don't even know what day it is today. Two days ago was Saturday. Today is Monday. Argh. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Walter Görlitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Apparently first edit was 2011-06-26T08:52:21 and second 2011-06-27T17:51:14. The next two followed shortly after. So technically, not four edits in 24 hours. I was also engaged in discussion. Would appreciate the block lifted or at least shortened.

Decline reason:

3RR is not a requirement for blocking. Whether or not you were engaged in discussion does not alter the fact that you were edit warring. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If you would like, I can amend your block log to state the block was for edit warring, not 3RR violation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I understand. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Jaci Velásquez

A tag has been placed on Template:Jaci Velásquez requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Jaci Velasquez

Sorry, you have reason. I fix errors in en.wiki whenever I see, but this time I was wrong. Thank you for already having done the motions, you could say for me to fix them. OffsBlink (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the English Wikipedia page of FC Barcelona

Hello Walter Görlitz

I would like to ask you if you could make the required additions to the English FC Barcelona page? You mentioned in the dicussion that the article should mention FC Barcelonas as a sports club as well and not just as a football club, much alike as the English FC Bayern München page. Could you be able to do that?

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil133 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I watch the page is to protect it from vandalism. I have no knowledge of Barca aside from that. I will bring it up at the football project page though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. As you can see I am not that well-informed in terms of using Wikipedia. But as I mentioned before, I agree fully with your view on the current English FC Barcelona page and which requirements that should be made in order to make the page resemble the FC Bayern München page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil133 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hello Walter Görlitz

Sorry for bothering you but I would like to ask you whether you could adjust the "stadia" section on the English FC Barcelona page, so there is not that big a gap between the two sections in the "stadia". I am unfortunately not able to do that.

Thank you very much in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil133 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No trouble at all. You may find faster response on the article's talk page.

It's an IE thing. They've included double bullets and IE9 needs to have a single bullet point on its own. I removed the double bullets. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Facilita Forecast page

Hello Walter,

Thank you for your comment. You are correct, the page should not have been added to the encyclopedia without further work so I have moved it back to user work in progress. I will request deletion of page which is now a redirect (when I've worked out how to do so!) and hopefully will have a suitable page soon. Gordon McKeown (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Another question

Hello Walter Görlitz

Sorry for bothering you again but I would like to ask you whether you could adjust the "stadia" section on the English FC Barcelona page again, so there is not that big a gap between the two sections in the "stadia". I am unfortunately not able to do that by myself and it appears to be a "problem" yet again.

Thank you very much in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil133 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see two big gaps in any browser. You'll have to explain where the gaps occur. You may also want to do it on the article's talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

flags

Hi, it is done in the Copa America articles so there should be a common practice Iska (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC) also, the MoS you mentioned specify FIFA world cup as an exception for flags not in infoboxes Iska (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll be sure to remove them from the Copa America articles. Thanks for the information. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the info. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

can you tell me on what basis you are making that call ? (re: my reference above of the MoS mentioning FIFA exception), thanks Iska (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG has no FIFA exception for next match previous match. The exception is for winning side, golden boot, etc.. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ozil

I've reverted your edits related to Mesut Ozil on the [2011–12 Real Madrid C.F. season|Real Madrid season page]. There was a discussion about his second nationality here and he wore the #10 in the first pre-season game last night, shown here. Thanks! Bobby (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with you concerning kit numbers, but this season I think that the preseason numbers will be official. In past, none of the senior members had worn numbers in the preseason that they were not assigned for league games (unless they were originally assigned a high number; greater than 25). And since Madrid has a color scheme, I really doubt they would assign 10 to Özil for the preseason if he is going to wear 23 in the league. In your reasoning to revert/edit you said that the source still has Özil in 23. If you are using the English version of the Madrid site, you will notice that Mateos & Garay are still listed on the squad and that both Mateos & Drenthe has 15 when both should be listed with no number because they are considered new players next season coming back off loans. maybe a better source Raul17 (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, now you just need a WP:RS for the number or you can forget trying to change it since the word postulado means "postulated". They're guessing. A guess isn't reliable. At all. As for citizenship, he gave up his Turkish passport and as such his citizenship to the country. Many new stories on it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not remember Özil wearing 10 in the preseason last summer, or I would have never listed him with number this number. As for as his citizenship, I always use the country of the player's birth until he or she plays for a senior team. Even Fifa changed its rule about players playing for national youth teams of one country and then playing for a senior team of another. I think it is better to list a player having dual nationality if it is of importance. Raul17 (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Walter is trying to argue Özil no longer has dual citizenship, that he forfeited his Turkish citizenship. If that is the case, then his second nationality should be removed. However, the news sources I am finding seem to imply Özil merely chose Germany over Turkey for FIFA purposes and do not directly say he forfeited his passport. Walter can you find preferably a German or Turkish news source that is definitive in this matter? Bobby (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Relinquishing his passport and relinquished his citizenship:

"Özil, 22, was born in Turkey. He held dual citizenship but opted in 2007 to relinquish his Turkish passport in favor of his German one." http://www.atlantic-times.com/archive_detail.php?recordID=2292

"He opted in 2007 to give up his Turkish citizenship so that he could be selected for Germany." http://www.thenational.ae/sport/football/zil-has-a-passport-to-superstardom

But since you asked for German news sources:

"Nach derzeitigem Stand ist der deutsche Nationalspieler Mesut Özil nicht mehr für die türkische Landesauswahl spielberechtigt, da er kein türkischer Staatsbürger mehr ist." http://www.spox.com/de/sport/fussball/dfb-team/0902/News/Oezil-derzeit-nicht-fuer-die-Tuerkei-spielberechtigt.html

"Nach derzeitigem Stand ist der deutsche Nationalspieler Mesut Özil nicht mehr für die türkische Landesauswahl spielberechtigt, da er kein türkischer Staatsbürger mehr ist." http://www.focus.de/sport/fussball/wm-2010/nationalmannschaft-oezil-derzeit-nicht-fuer-die-tuerkei-spielberechtigt_aid_371691.html

Hope that you understand now. He has relinquished Turkish citizenship. However, I don't think the Turks have relinquished their claim on him. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't read Turkish, otherwise I'm sure that I could have found sources to back the claim from Turkish sources. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Those are adequate. Thanks! Any chance this is also true for Sami Khedira? Bobby (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sami who? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sami Khedira Bobby (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Walter. I do not like the personal attack (or an implied one). Like I said before, I usually wait for the official numbers before edited them and I told you my reasoning for the change this time. Like I said, I do not remember him wearing #10 last preseason (in fact, I thought he wore 19) and I would not change his number if that has happened. As for as his nationality, I always use the player's country of birth unless he plays for another national team like Pepe or has an EU passport like Marcelo. So I do not know why you harping on this with me since it is a non-issue for me. Raul17 (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. The change isn't permanent and you don't have reference for it being a permanent change.

As for nationality, it's not usually country of birth. I can give you several footballers who who were born in countries other than the ones for which they play. Owen Hargreaves: born in Canada, plays for England. There are many other examples. Not harping on the point, but I suggest you check the Özil discussion page and you'll see why it's an issue.

When we have a good reference, we can change the number. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

NO problem from me. But just tone your comments down a bit. Some of us are more sensitive than others!  : ) Raul17 (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

References, Bibiography, Notes...or what?

I reverted your changes to the section heads at Old Testament, because I believe that References (when the section contains nothing but book titles and page numbers) is better than Notes, and that Bibliography is the best alternative to References when that header is already in use. But I'm keen to find out what's actually recommended - is there room for my preference? PiCo (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you revert it back because you're removing material that may be useful. I don't like your approach to editing in general. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

? I didn't remove any material at all, I just changed section headers. PiCo (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I read "I reverted your changes" and read no further. MOS:APPENDIX Does not have a bibliography section. Please follow the section layout. Each section is optional as none must be included, but we don't create new sections out of personal preference. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The section you make reference to reads:

however, "Bibliography" is discouraged because it is not clear that it is limited to the works of the subject of the article.

The term should not be used. And this discussion should be on the article's talk page, not here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

New Wikipedia User

Hi Walter Görlitz, I'm a new Wikipedia and am participating in a Wikipedia class as part of my MA in communications and technology at the University of Alberta. I noticed you've made several edits to the FC Edmonton page and I was wondering if you'd be able to help me improve the page properly. I'm also a founding member of the FC Edmonton Supporters Group, so I have a dual interest in that page. Thanks. Strobe z (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Page for G. Craige Lewis

Hello Walter Gorlitz, I work for Pastor G. Craige Lewis and have made the corrections to his information on his page. Each time it shows that you have made different changes. Please advise why. The information you are listing is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarminaBarnett (talk • contribs) 19:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This should be carried-out on the article's talk page, not mine.

You may be in a conflict of interest and I strongly suggest that you step back from editing that article.

As to your question, WP:MOSBIO states in the Names section:

While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known.

Unless that's not his given name, it is to be included, otherwise please include the pastor's first name.

As for "different changes", my changes are different because yours have been also. Once you provided that pastor's denomination it was obvious that the other should be removed. Pastor is on;y capitalized at the start of a sentence. That's simple grammar.

If you have any further questions about the article, please post them on its talk or discussion page. If you have questions about how to edit or provide references, add a {{help me}} template on your page and someone will stop by. And do sign your comments on talk or discussion pages. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Özil & Real Madrid's preseason (2010-11)

I was trying to find Özil wearing the 10 shirt in last year's preseason and the only two matches Özil played were the games against Hércules and Peñarol wearing 26 (and Lass wearing 10). The only reference I could find with him possibly wearing #10 was when Mahamadou Diarra signed for Monaco last January, and there was talks of Lass switching to 6(M.Diarra), Emmanuel Adebayor being assigned 23(Özil) and Özil changing to 10(Lass) which could not happen because it is against league rules for players to be assigned different numbers during the season unless a reserve player is being "promoted" to the senior team like Lionel Messi in 2004 or David Mateos last term (both players wore high numbers (26+), or before the close the transfer window on August 31 like Özil switching to 23 from 19. Again, in the years i have been following Madrid, I have not seen their players wear different numbers than they will wear during league play. But it is better to wait for them to annouce their assignments. Thank you. Raul17 (talk) 01:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Özil did wear a different number than what he wore in the pre-season. If you start here you will see that his number changed at least once, but I do agree that we should wait for the final announcement. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Özil was assigned #26 for the preseason when he finally signed for Madrid. However, since he was being registered for the first team and not Castilla, he had to wear a number between 2-12 or 14-24 (25 if there are only two goalkeepers on the roster). Since 26 is a reserve team number, he had to wear something different (as I explained in the Özil section above). He started the season (one game) wearing #19 because that was the only one available after Garay was not registered on the roster. After van der Vaart was sold to Tottenham, Garay was registered with #19 and Özil was re-registered with the vacant #23 which was legal under league rules because the transfer window was still open. Again, like I said before, I do not remember a Madrid player wearing a number during the preseason that he did not wear in league play unless it was a high number like Özil and Mateos (27 to 15) . Raul17 (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Royston Drenthe's & the Madrid English site

In your last revert, you have Drenthe as #15 when is not offially assigned that number. When he was loaned to Hércules, Mateos was reassigned 15 before he himself was loaned out. When Drenthe and Mateos were returned, they are (were) treated as new players for the new season. neither player was assigned 15. My problem with Wikipedians is that everyone will use the English version of the Madrid site eventhough they are glaring errors on it. As I mentioned before, that site still has both Drenthe and Mateos with #15! Both players can not be assigned one number. Before the change, the Spanish version (correctly) had both players with no number assigned as with the rest of the players (now it has no numbers for any player.) Have fun. Raul17 (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: The Narnia Code

Did I create this? You'll have to remind me what it was about. I certainly haven't done it today and have no recollection of having done so in the past, though that doesn't mean I haven't created it. Generally though I keep a record of all my artcles here and it's not on that list. I've just Googled The Narnia Code and I'm guessing it was an article about a book? Is that right? Can you help? Could you perhaps userfy it so I can take a look? I'm intrigued now. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed it was empty and never had any content. I tagged it and Twinkle took care of the notifications. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

And now I see why you wanted info from me. It was recently touched by [User:Ckruschke]] and I was following-up on a different project I was working on. The page never had any content and so I can't help with the history of it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

ok, cheers anyway. Just an update, just FYI really. The Narnia Code was a BBC documentary about C S Lewis which claimed there is a hidden code within the Chronicles of Narnia. The documentary, I think, is about the book, which made the claim. (see here). I guess it was a redirect, possibly to C S Lewis, or something like that as I do tend to create a lot of these. It doesn't seem to get many hits though so maybe we can live without it. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The Narnia Code is also a book which (basically) explores the author's view that the books somehow have a central connection to Middle Ages planetary mysticism. Whether it is true or not - and not having read the book, I cannot state - "I" felt it was misleading to have the redirect of this stub point to either CS Lewis or the Narnia books (I don't remember which, there are actually two books as the original was called Planet Narnia and the reprint was renamed Narnia Code - an apparent nod to the DaVinci Code for marketing) since the books were not written by or endorsed by Lewis. A reference on the actual page discussing the book is certainly allowable, which there is, but I think redirecting the stub implies something that books don't support (good or bad). Obviously this is my opinion and I'm happy to be wrong if I've overstepped. Ckruschke (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

And the article was completely empty and had been for a while. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Calvary Criticsm - Going Forward

If that section is blanked, we will need to hang onto some reference why it was blanked because there will inevitably be another person who comes along to add criticism to "restore NPOV to the page" or the like. From all the discussions I've put into the Talk section, obviously this is not something I would fear, try to off-hand block, etc - but just something to keep in the back of your mind. Ckruschke (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

If we include a summary of the decision in the articles' talk, it will be archived and we can point to that. I'm not worried about it disappearing either. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI, here is the link to the archive of the David Templeton Losing My Religion article from the April 2-8, 1998 edition of the Sonoma County Independent from the website of the publisher Metro Publishing Inc: [4]. I requested it be substituted as part of your {{editprotected}} request on the article talk page. Mojoworker (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Quite helpful, I think.--Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Trinity Western University.

Please help me understand why you keep deleting the omada teambuilding link that I put in external links for this page. Yes the body talks about Omada teambuilding, but there is no link in the body only two references links which do not point to the web page.

Please help me understand why you are undoing this.

JLBteam (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links lists the rules about what should and should not be linked. The new material, that you're in a conflict of interest over, doesn't really apply to the school in the first place. It's not a current program or field of study. Check articles for other universities with team building departments. Those departments are not listed in the University article. So really, the material should probably be removed completely. However, you'll see that if material is listed in the article's body, it should not be included in the external links section. Similarly, if this were included only in the external links section, would be considered SPAM and as such would also have to be removed. So in short, I'm keeping it out because it's in the article's body and shouldn't be duplicated, but any editor could remove the section from the body too. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response and that was not my intention to SPAM, but just to refrence the information about a program at the University. JLBteam (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Right. The reference makes a direct link to the page you're referencing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment in World Cup Squad

Ok. I'LL write edit summary

File:CPT-Testing-Whitebox.svg

Hi Walter,

Apologies if my change to the whitebox testing page didn't make much sense. The aim of the image was to show the various code paths being tested individually, shown by the different coloured lines, this obviously didn't work, any ideas how we could make this clearer? Thanks Pluke (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No ideas, but taking three chunks of text and adding a series of coloured lines in a box wasn't particularly clear. What did the coloured lines signify? Where did they come from when the lines outside the box were black? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I've adapted it from the black box testing diagram. The coloured lines to show that different paths through the program were being explicitly tested, fair point about the black line input. Pluke (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey

I know this may be a little weird, but I was wondering if you could offer your two cents on this discussion Here since you seem to know much more about the way wikipedia works than I do. I do not believe this person belongs in the former members section of said article, but I'm not really sure what to say to get the point across. - Jer757 19:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Worship Music review

Hello, I was wondering why exactly you removed the doseofmetal.com review on the Worship Music page.

You stated that "No reviewer name given" which is not true. Right after the rating and Facebook like button, you can read "Posted by...". You also claimed "no sign of editorial overview", which I don't exactly understand, so I thought I'd rather ask here on your page than to just put it back on the site. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.40.92 (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Editorial overview is when a managing editor or publisher can be identified. This is as over and against a collection of blogs where anything goes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I can understand that. So if there is no editorial overview, there is no way that particular blog can be used as a reference in an article? I'm asking because I can think of quite a few instances where music blogs are included in the reception part of the article, even though their blogs don't have an editorial overview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.40.92 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It's really up to the RS group and I'm not intimately involved in their process.

I see it now: Posted by Guido. Don't think that meets RS guidelines, but you can check with WP:RS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for your help. Schönen Abend noch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.40.92 (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hello Sir,

I know that my article on Grey Box Testing is too small, but I am actually working on it. If you could just give me some time, I will develop it and add some more content to it.

Regards...Gunit31 (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Work on the section in the software testing article instead. When it gets to be too large to be there, then we should create a new article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

All right, that's a great suggestion. Thanks. I'll do that.

Gunit31 (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Synoptic Gospels page

I posed a thought on the talk page, just wanted to let you know and hopefully have a discussion that's not limited to the comment line on edits. Justin Z (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Christian Music Central

Hi, Walter. As a fellow believer I have been trying to extend the reach of Christian artists in sharing the gospel. Please do not work against me on this. Lord bless you!RichLindvall (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC).

Hi Rich. As a fellow believer, I have been trying to extend the reach of Christian artists in sharing the Gospel through Wikipedia. Please do not work against me on this. The Lord bless you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Now, if you'll take a minute to read WP:ELNO you'll see that the site does not comply with allowable links. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Walter. How is it "Good Faith" if you insist on deleting links which enable the reader to more easily access the artists music/sharing? That is my main goal here: to get the word out. How about the "spirit vs the letter" of the law? 207.55.106.221 (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

They're good faith because you are not being malicious. Have you read the notice on your talk page? Please sign in and see what is discussed there.

The letter of the law is that linking to your wiki seems to violate WP:ELNO. Wikipedia is not a place for you to "get the word out". There are advertising channels for that. Your wiki seems to be a great collection of links. Links to articles. Links to videos/songs. Links to web pages. However, that's not the role that the external links section plays in Wikipedia. How about reading WP:EL and see what is allowed and argue from a position of policy?

For the record, There are 1, 2 editors who are of the same opinion: your wiki violates WP:ELNO, but see your talk page for more information.

Please remember, no one is trying to tank your efforts. We're trying to maintain a level of quality on Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Hey, I did my formatting wrong on that talk page. Don't worry about offending me, I give you thanks. Lucasoutloud (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Please delete my account

Hi, Walter. I am no longer interested in editing Wikipedia. Would you please delete my account? (Or block me for eternity.) RichLindvall (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm just an editor. I can't block or delete anything. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You've done quite well at blocking and deleting me from here. 207.55.106.221 (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. I've simply undone your edits based on Wikipedia policy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Or more correctly, based on my interpretation of Wikipedia policy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

@RichLindvall: Just leave if you don't want to be here anymore. Calabe1992 (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Logos sizes

Hi, I have seen that most of the logos in many football club infoboxes are absolutely oversized. As far as I know, non-free logos and other images in Wikipedia are for an identification purpose only. It's a shame that you have undone some of those changes... Fma12 (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all: I don´t know how to put a talkback template on your talk page, so I had to reply your inquired here. If you want to explain me how to do it, you are welcome. Second, I made a simple change, without commiting any kind of vandalism. It is just a resize of an image. Do you thing I should discuss this issue on every talk page? Sorry but I don´t have much time, so I rather suggest that you put the images back to their previous state on your own. And finally: try to be more polite when you leave a message to me. Thanks. Fma12 (talk) 03:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Live Bootleg (Resurrection Band album)

Perhaps we do not agree of what WP:ELNO #1 means. Like you said, paragraph 31 discussed the album. So if this would become a featured article, it would mention this article, and use the website as the source. Therefore the website "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" which is exactly the wording of WP:ELNO #1. As far as I understand, WP:ELNO #1 means that if something can be added to the article, add it to the article, don't use it as an external source. Don't you agree? --Muhandes (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No, you understand the policy correctly. However, the article is about Christian rock music. It then describes elements of the concert recording during the next few paragraphs. It discusses information in a way that would not be appropriate in the article. It also incorrectly interprets the details of "Military Man" and so would not be appropriate to include in this album's content, nor the album on which it is first recorded. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If it's completely misleading, it would fall under WP:ELNO #2. If it has some merit, it could be added to the article (if only as critical discussion of the cover), and would therefore fall under WP:ELNO #1. However, I don't think this is worth the argument. I improved the format and moved it to "Further reading". --Muhandes (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If. You haven't read it? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I glimpsed it, but as I don't know a thing about the subject I couldn't tell. My point was that if it's completely misleading, then it falls under WP:ELNO #2, else it falls under WP:ELNO #1. But as I said above, not worth the argument. --Muhandes (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I gave you the impression that it was misleading. Most songs can have multiple meanings. The article spends time interpreting "Military Man" as eschatological while I have always taking the song to be a soteriological narrative. That's why I said it incorrectly interprets the details of the song.

Nonetheless, it offers details that could be incorporated into the article but are probably not necessary for the article and would make better additional reading rather than as a reference. That's why it should be included as an external link. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

TestTrack Pro

I have declined your speedy deletion tag on TestTrack Pro; a product is not a company. A7 tags should be used for authors, not books, artists, not art...and software engineers. Not software. Ironholds (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a glaring hole. There are no categories for non-notable products but you're just doing your job and observing the letter of law rather than the spirit. Not a problem. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Glaring hole, indeed; I suggest you go fix it if you wish to see it changed. Ironholds (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where to fix it, but if I need another windmill at which to tilt, this may be a good choice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've also declined Take The Crown; the sourcing and releases indicate significance, and (arguably) notability - although notability is distinct from CSD criteria. Ironholds (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You are mistake. They do not meet notability with only one release on a major label. Under what criteria are they notable? And shouldn't this be on the article's page? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The requirement to pass A7 is lower than the requirement for notability - and notability is based not only on releases but on references. And no, since I'm telling you "I've declined your tag" I should probably inform you. Ironholds (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Request to help students of IEP

Hey Walter, I'm Pratik, a campus ambassador for Wikipedia's India Education Program. I think you are already aware of this program. I also see that you have a great interest in the Software testing field. I just want to request you to take the edits made by our a bit lightly. These students have just started with their editing on Wikipedia and I believe that if we keep on reverting their edits, it might affect their morale. I would be glad if you actually visit the talk pages of students and guide them what all they can add to the existing article, what is required in the article, etc so that they will work on the sub-topics which have scope for improvement. We all share a common goal of improving Wikipedia and articles related to Software testing. Pease help our students with your vast knowledge of software testing and your experience on Wikipedia.Thanks. Pratik Lahoti (talk) 05:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the programme only of some of the members of the programme who have added material that is not suitable for Wikipedia. They add opinion, generic material to specific articles, or when they add referenced material it's often duplicating material that exists in the article. I don't know how to help your students until you tell them how to add material correctly and I won't take their edits lightly. That doesn't help to make Wikipedia any better. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay I understand. Don't take the edits lightly. Well, most of the edits made on Software testing articles these days are by the students from College of Engineering, Pune in India. They have been assigned topics and have been asked to work on them till 25th October after which they will be evaluated. So my request to you is that whenever you find any rubbish being added in any article, you just go to the user's talk page and tell the student what you are expecting or where there is room for improvement.The table on this page consists of all the student names and the topics they are working on. Hoping for some help from your side :) Thanks again! Pratik Lahoti (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Tell you what. I started by removing the material and then giving detailed comments on the editor's talk pages. They did not respond. They simply added the same deficient material back in without discussing or attempting to improve the material. Occasionally, they did improve the material with half-hearted attempts and I removed those with explanations. Now, I don't have the time to teach your students: I'm not being paid to do that but you appear to be and it's been cutting into my working schedule. What I will do is remove the material with a comment. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither am I being paid! And I'm not asking you to teach the students. I was just asking you to tell them what is expected out of them as you know Software testing better than me.Pratik Lahoti (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

They have the same guidelines as everyone else. I see that many, if not all, have been given welcome messages. Those welcome message clearly outline what is expected from them. Perhaps if they looked at the existing content and simply added appropriate (read verifiable and reliable) sources and then contributed by filling-in omissions, that would be a start. However they seem to write statements that are too broad ("Basically Grey Box Testing is also a testing performed on functional and structural part of an application" this can be said of both white- and black-box testing: see also [5] and User:Netra Nahar/Sandbox) grammatically poor (see the previous example), and most importantly duplicate existing material.

They even tried to create a stand-alone article for Grey box testing, when the existing material is unreferenced and takes less than one paragraph to explain and when it was removed. They then saved an archive (User:Netra Nahar/Sandbox, mentioned above). I can only assume that they play on adding it back later.

I'm sorry that I assumed that you were an instructor. I understand that you're an ambassador. I'm sorry that I don't quite know what that means, but if it carries the weight of the term ambassador you convey bidirectionally. If that's the case, please let the students know that their additions are welcome, but only if they improve Wikipedia. However, I get the distinct feeling that they're taking shortcuts and writing material as standalone articles and then inserting that material into Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it was my mistake that I didn't brief you about the programme. Well, India Education Program is implemented in some colleges in Pune, where students have been assigned some topics related to their course and are asked to improve the articles throughout the semester. Based on the quality of content they are adding, they will be evaluated by the instructors. As ambassador, my job is to guide them and help them with the Wiki syntax, detect copyvios,etc. We already have conducted sessions and informed them what all they are supposed to do. We have also questioned them regarding the notability of some topics. They made some mistakes initially, but I think now the situation is pretty much in control and they are slowly understanding what editing on wiki is all about.
I am second year student and I can't help 4th year students with technical stuff. So I asked you for help.Pratik Lahoti (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Changes on the Bayern page

Hi Walter,

I modified the number of days Zlatko Čajkovski was head coach of Bayern Munich and saw that you un-did my edit. If I understand you correctly you want the number of days to reflect the time each head coach was active for Bayern only when they were in the Bundesliga. Is that correct?

I mean that is ok but it doesn't say anywhere on the page that the number of days would only reflect the Bundsliga time. So I'd say that my proposal was correct. Or you add "days only refer to Bundesliga time..."

You also undid another change of mine: On the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FC_Bayern_Munich_records_and_statistics I change the way you calculated the number of days Jupp Heynckes is currently active for Bayern. Your entry, however, was wrong on two counts: first, Heynckes began his duties on July 1st, 2011 and not June 30th, 2011. And you miscalculate his active days as you start you calculation on June 11th, 2011. Don't know why you un-did my changes.

Kind regards, Beckrich. Beckrich (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason the changes were reverted were twofold. The first was the presented case: you made your changes without commenting. The second is a structural issue: the material is unreferenced. If you provide either (or both) changes won't appear suspicious. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I see your point. I'm new to wikipedia and still have to learn how things are done around here. Thanks. Beckrich (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

DCOM Productions

I wonder if User:DeadX07 might edit some more. He seemed to "get" your explanation of why the DCOM article wasn't acceptable - hopefully he'll decide to stick around and become a productive editor... Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 01:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think he works for the company and he was (is) a single-purpose editor. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Einverstanden. But he agreed that the article should be deleted once you'd explained why. Most SPAs would have carried on complaining. Tonywalton ^Talk 01:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For explaining WP:RS to a newcomer Tonywalton Talk 01:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Apology

I did not see your messages yesterday because I did know to look for them. I did not know about the problem with red linking and didn't realize it would be a problem as the article is pending review. I will be sure to not do it again. I do believe the site is legitimate as there are many similar sites linking to those same articles in a similar fashion. Thanks

68.8.236.40 (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to delete your comment on Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup. Editadam 01:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Fight'em 'Til You Can't

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

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

A tag has been placed on Fight'em 'Til You Can't requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Football captains

I read your comment in the Real Madrid page regarding symbols for captains; is there anything about the practice of seniority of the vice-captains: 1st vice-captain, 2nd vice-captain and so forth? I have always reverted if anyone includes it in the players section and want to know if that is the correct. Raul17 (talk) 04:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall any conversation. Check out Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football‎. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Every one of those players is Canadian. If you can find a source proving otherwise, I will understand. I actually know a couple players on that team that are supposidly foreign players when actually they are Canadian. Also, would it make sense that a bunch of foreign players would be playing for an amateur Canadian soccer club in Winnipeg? 24.78.226.138 (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I did. It's the club's own page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.hellas-sc.com/roster.php?year=2011

• Ayers, Stuart: Southampton England
• Kurbegovic, Edin: Bosnia/Hercegovina
• Mendez, Jorge: San Salvador El Salvador

And based on your stellar track-record of

1. removing content without commenting, and
2. focusing on the nationalities of players and removing those with which you disagree,

it was an easy call to mark your edits as un-constructive. When you feel like playing nicely, let us know and you won't set off alarms with your edits. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for wrongfully changing the nationality of 2 players. 24.78.226.138 (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

On that page, it was four. On others, you removed valid nationalities of dozens of players with the comment "unsourced". The irony of course is your changes are unsourced as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope, 2. So you are telling me if there is certain text in an article that has no source, it cant be removed because removing it is unsourced? That is ridiculous. What your saying is no page can be edited because every edit will be unsourced. 24.78.226.138 (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Everything needs a reference. If you change something, that too needs a reference. Thanks for playing. I've fixed the SC Hellas article according to Wikipedia rules: references. You're welcome don't bother writing here any longer you're usually wrong. And your spelling is worse than your fact-checking. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The real problem is that you change or remove only specific nationalities (Polish and Turkish so far). That smells like nationalistic bias. Someone else has noticed your flaws in logic. I suggest that you tread carefully. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Not proud that I was right, but I saw it coming. Please seek consensus when making changes the way you're doing. I suppose that flies in the face of being bold, but those seem to be the facts these days. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No More War

I appreciate your civility on the MLS page. Although I am used to seeing teams listed with the most recent winner given top billing (including on other sports pages), I'll take your word for it that the alphabetical method is correct. If you change the order, I'll refrain from "correcting" it... (plus neither one of us wants to get kicked off of Wikipedia over something so small. Yikes!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeydishwasher (talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You'll see that it's standard practice in infoboxes with this edit. The only thing is that I'm at my 3rd revert on the article now too =( --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for this Walter. I was going to simply remove the link, but at the last moment, I thought it may possibly still have some use. All the best to you. Happy editing! :)  -- WikHead (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Görlitz,

Thank you for bring this to my attention. But I assure you I did not intentionally do this. My cousins and I were joking around and when I wasn't paying attention, they typed on the page. When I came back, I asked them how to get out of the page and they tricked me into posting it. We then began looking through the page and they started giggling and I figured out what they did. I went back and got rid of it as soon as I could. I am very sorry about the inconvenience. Happy writing!

Yours truly,

STLCARDS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.248.102.226 (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

First, that notice was placed on your account on December 18, 2010 and you're just responding to it now? Thanks for doing it though.

Second, you were tricked into pushing a button that reads "Save page"? I admit that the Cancel link should be larger, possibly a button. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the article Test Strategy

Hello Walter, I and my partner MrinmayeeHingolikar are working on the article Test strategy. As you must be aware, under the India Education Programme, we, the students of College of Engineering, Pune have been assigned to edit an article on wikipedia. So this is our first article. We've been working on it since last one month. We moved it up to the main space yesterday, and it go reverted by you. Could you please help what exactly do we need to improve upon? Yes you did mention it there on my sandbox, but do they apply to the article as a whole or only to a specific section? Are the contents incorrect? It would be a great help if you take your time out and point out to the areas that you feel need modification. Thanks and regards, Ankitamor (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not up to standards and I explained why on the article in your name space. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

My Talk Page

Hey Walter. First off excellent job with following Robin van Persie's wikipedia page. Whenever I look at the history your always the one with the latest constructive edit. Also second you placed on my talk page a link which helps me notify a user once I revert there vandalism. First off thank you. This will be useful as I monitor the Indian Football pages a lot and everyday there is vandalism everywhere whether its people making fun of Indian Football or just boasting there club. Anyway I just want to know, what if that user who's edit I revert is an IP user. Surely there is no point in doing so considering it is not a wiki user and that IP user will most likely not care about it and will continue vandalizing. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The communication isn't just for the editor, but it is for editors who, like me, look for vandalism and try to have it stop. An anonymous edit cannot usually be blocked unless they've been warned four times. If an anonymous editor's actions are not marked as vandalism, on on a few pages, they can do more damage than is necessary. If they are self-reverting, I usually add {{Welcome-anon-vandal}}. I hope that adding this requirement isn't too onerous. If it is, try installing Twinkle or a similar tool. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright then. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Christian hardcore bands

Look, we're both getting a little overheated on the talk page, and that's not going to help improve the article or Wikipedia at all. I was thinking that to cool down (and since I need to get caught up on my school work anyway), you and I could take a Wikibreak for the next week or so and then try this again, so we can resume the discussion with clear minds and work it out like grown-ups. What do you say? Deal?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm cooling down now. You have no grounds for indicating one album. To go a step further, if you insist on taking phrases out of context, the article will remain laughable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Slow down

You are leaving comments in too many different places too fast for me to keep track and respond appropriately. Try to keep it limited to one section on the list's talk page so we're not leaving fragments of a conversation all over Wikipedia. Also, please avoid any more removal of bands from the list until some sort of consensus is reached, so we can avoid a pointless edit war.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No need. The comments are all requesting that the discussion happens on the one article. Comment there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Bruce Cockburn

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You are not the subject of the discussion - this is just an FYI.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

To Walter

Hello Walter, I have a big problem that I think you can help me with but I cannot announce it here. I do have a Facebook page that you can get my email address at. Would be awesome if I could get in touch with you. Thanks, Oz Fox Sirozfox (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Test Data Generation Article

I had recently moved http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Data_Generation to the main space. You had asked my to rework the lead. I have done the same and I was wondering if you could have a look at it and tell me whether it is up to the mark? Gakiwate (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Bare link tags

Following up on user talk:Xeno#Why are you removing bare link tags: if you are going to put serious work into cleaning up the over 10,875 tags still remaining (placed en masse without appropriate approval), I will pause my reversion of the task until November 30. If the category has fallen by at least 1000 by that date, I will delay for a further 30 days, and so on. Please advise, –xeno^talk 13:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why editing like this needs approval or removal. The discussion was too long to read while at work and I haven't read it yet. I suppose I can go through the list for articles I might have some interest in, but I'm just a bit confused about the reason for removing it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Because it was an automated bot task run without necessary approval (see Wikipedia:Bot policy#Assisted editing guidelines), that placed the tags in the wrong location, that overloaded the category with too many articles than can be reasonably handled by humans. If there are humans who want to go through these 10,000+ articles, then the category can be listified rather than having these garish tags at the top of the articles for several years or more. –xeno^talk 14:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

One down. 10,000 to go. =( I'll try to knock the list down this weekend. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok. If you are going to work on it, I will hold until the end of the month. And if the category has had a decent dent put into it by then, I'll hold another 30 days, and so on. Thank you for your efforts. –xeno^talk 18:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help. It should keep me out of trouble =) --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind helping out with this, if you two don't mind? I've fixed a few of the listed pages already. -Jer ^{Hit me up} 19:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Be my guest! Many hands make light work. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A great many of the bare refs are to AllMusic. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ministerpräsident

You might be inteerested in participating in this. Kingjeff (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I don't dabble in German politics so it's not really of interest. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

2015 FIFA Women's World Cup

I've found a question from you on another user's page. Probably you already found the answer: [6]. Florentyna (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Scrum History

Hello, I'm the one who changed the year of the oopsala where the scrum methodology was presented from 95 to 96. On the german page you can find the year 1996; furthermore Boris Gloger asks for the year 1996 in his scrum certifying exams. Are you sure it's right? Greetings, Michael. and sorry for not beeing registered and ignoring some wiki-guidelines --195.3.81.25 (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The German page is not a reliable source. I googled the subject and it showed-up in 1995. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Scoreboard

Hello. Where can I find the discussion about WP Football discussion on scoreboards that you mentioned on Talk:2011 MLS Cup Playoffs? Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 01:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Search the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football‎ archives. The consensus is that it's not a scoreboard and it's best to update after full-time, however it's almost impossible to police and so as a project the best we can do is recommend that it not be done. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Apps to Caps

"Apps" should be left on the Bayern list - the word "caps" is really only used in international football (where players often receive actual caps - the term has been used more widely on Wikipedia, but wrongly. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

As I hit other club articles I saw that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this IP address' talk page

This IP address is from the wi-fi network at the University of Saskatchewan. There is a high probability of further vandalism. --198.169.17.249 (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There have only been two edits from that IP to date. The one that added material against our policies against controversial material in biographies of living people and the one made above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Scenario testing

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

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

A tag has been placed on Scenario testing requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 13:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

ZOEgirl (album)

Hello,

The edit you made to ZOEgirl (album) was minor, because it simply replaced the # symbol with the letters "No." Next time, please label similar edits as minor.

Thanks,
--LABcrabs (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Because it changed content. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

What makes me consider it minor is that it hasn't "changed content" as you suggest it is. It is simply replacing a symbol with text. What i don't understand is 1. why you did that and 2. why you consider it a major edit and not a minor one. --LABcrabs (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I take it that you are making reference to Help:Minor edit "Formatting that does not change the meaning of the page" however you're missing the parenthetical part "(... where this is not contentious)". For some editors it is contentious and so I don't mark it as minor. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly how is this vandalism?

I hope this is the correct place to respond, but in regards to the Philip Glass page, I was simply trying to contribute.

His middle name was not stated. I happened to know what it was, so I included it. I'm no wikipedia wizard, but I'm having a hard time understanding how that is considered vandalism.

And in response to me making the change twice, as you can see someone else made another change shortly after I added my harmless contribution. I just figured that since someone may have opened the page before I submitted my change, they may have saved their own changes with a page that did not include my revision, since the template they were initially editing did not include my contributions.

72.19.94.144 (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's vandalism in that it is a controversial edit and is unreferenced. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

since when is his middle name controversial? exactly what controversy are you referring to? and SINCE WHEN does something like someone's middle name get referenced on the page. I have looked around at some pages, and for the life of me, I cant find any that cite a source for something so trivial as someone's middle name.

and for the record, my confused friend, that IS his middle name, and your ARE taking this a bit far. but just because I am a nice guy, I will ask for your help. help me, oh great one who trolls wikipedia, help me provide a resource that will suit your needs. his middle name pretty well agreed on by some relatively trustworthy sources, like, oh, I don't know, PHILIP GLASS HIMSELF! Watch the documentary. he says his middle name.

furthermore, it is stated on his IMDB page, which is a peer-reviewed and trustworthy source. see for yourself.

this is silly, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.124.105 (talk) 07:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

reflinks with {{cite web}}

Just wondering how you use the reflinks tool with {{cite web}} (e.g. in your recent edit)? ··gracefool☺ 03:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a link to javascript:location='//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py/'+(typeof%20wgPageName!='undefined'?wgContentLanguage+':'+wgPageName:)+'?client=bookmark&citeweb=on&overwrite=simple&limit=42'; on my browser's toolbar and I can click on it on any page. The website does the rest. More info at User:Dispenser/Reflinks --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks. There's no documentation for the attributes (citeweb being the crucial one). ··gracefool☺ 10:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Help me by Jaci

Hi, my question is, do you have the album Help Me by Jaci? Thank you so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyrblue (talk • contribs) 01:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. No. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Newspapers reliability

Hi, Walter. I decided to write you here because I don't want to give the impression that we're having a discussion regarding our little difference in the 1966 WC talk page. At least from my part, we're not, and I repeat your main point is right, but I just think it's unnecesarily meticulous. But what I think is important for you to know in the future is that newspapers are not official sources. I've checked out what you linked me and I can't see what there could have given you the impression that they are. Newspapers do not pursue scientific precision, and therefore are usually not reliable. Besides, official sources are those affiliated to the organizers of an event or the owners of some thing, and newspapers don't receive officiality because they don't belong to any organization. They're useful nevertheless, but usually only when we've got nothing better (which is too frequently the case). Please don't take this personally, because it's not. I'm telling you this just to help you improve the backing up of your contributions in Wikipedia. Regards. Ipsumesse (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

For attendance at sporting events, newspapers usually just parrot the information given to them. So I'm sorry, I don't see your point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Isaac Cuenca

2011– Barcelona 3 (1) can not you see? (User talk:agelshan) 21 november

Petra 1984-1986

Hello Walter,

Thank you for your review. I believe that you are right with the date of Captured... and just the recording sessions were in 1985. I will do the correction back to 1986 if you want me to and I will make another correction on the "Beat the system" page (released in "1984" or "1985")?

1984 Beat the System StarSong/A&M John Lawry replaces John Slick in keyboards. Nominated for Grammy Award for Best Gospel Performance in 1985.

1986 Captured In Time and Space StarSong/A&M First live album for the band. Last album featuring Greg X. Volz.

1986 Back to the Street StarSong/A&M First album featuring John Schlitt. Nominated for Grammy Award for Best Gospel Performance in 1986.

Peace, Uwe50 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.18.18.20 (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The dates I referenced were 1) on the back of the vinyl recordings and were the release dates, not the recording dates. 2) They are listed with those dates in the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yerba mate

Sorry you were offended by my adding "comment" to your post. I added a bit to one of my posts, almost simultaneously to your update. I was merely trying to keep things orderly. Lou Sander (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspected it was done innocently. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I gave a thought to messaging you about it at the time. I guess I should have yielded to the temptation. ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jake_Fuersturm

Who in the hell are you? Djathinkimacowboy 16:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

An editor. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

More precisely, Djathinkimacowboy directed users to the SPI via a Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance‎ request. After the complaining that Djathinkimacowboy offered there I felt it was important to respond at the SPI as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Walter,

following the WQA opened by the above editor, I've determined that he is in the bad habit of rattling cages quite often. Some people he has had frictions with in the mere 26 days since he opened his account include, Erikeltic, DIREKTOR, Cameron Scott, and McGeddon. Seems to be a regular pattern of accusing people of "stalking", "harassment", and "personal attacks" but does not appear to present himself in a particularly civil manner, from what I gather. The fact that he has opened up a dialogue with you, commencing with a rather aggressive "Who the hell are you?" seems to suggest that this guy is adversarial. The WQA shows he is not always willing to accept the truth either. I suspect that Erikeltic is also unwilling to drop the stick in terms of the SPI, "Jake", matter, as he too is still pursuing admin advice, fraught in seeing cowboy blocked, it would seem. Needless to say this is just some friendly advice, that Djathinkimacowboy seems a bit of a mud-slinger, so you might want to watch him carefully, in future, especially since you opposed his "canvassing" claims in the SPI, and his reaction is to treat everyone against him like a group conspiracy, then starts taking to several talk pages, which becomes harder to follow. Take care. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 04:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

New club season articles

I'm currently working on the 1991–92 SV Werder Bremen season and the 2011–12 1. FSV Mainz 05 season. Both are not complete and needs some working. If you're wondering about the Werder Bremen season, that's the season they won the European Cup Winners' Cup. Kingjeff (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not wondering but will keep an eye out for it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I've started on the 1963–64 Hertha BSC season. It still need some working on. Kingjeff (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Honors/Honours

Haha, sorry man, good catch! Enjoy the offseason, best of luck to you guys in 2012. -- Fifty7 (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for 2011–12 Hannover 96 Season

There is a deletion review here. Kingjeff (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you vote on the topic? Kingjeff (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

King's X

Hi, I'm not sure I understand what your saying. I'm attempting to comprehend what your trying to point out. What exactly is the difference between material that is unsourced and material that needs sourcing? Aren't they one in the same? The statements never had any proper sourcing to begin with. Any claims without proper sourcing should be removed immediately. Whats the difference if that maintenance tag was inserted in November? The sentences never contained a reliable source in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.29.104 (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

in re OWS Library merge discussion, possible canvassing

(also posting to WP1234's talkpage)

An extra set of eyes is appreciated, but those guidelines talk about using neutral language when notifying. Encouraging others the way he did is not neutral. Sounds like he just wanted help arguing by replying to all the "Keep/Do Not Merge" votes. -A98 98.92.185.66 (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

1995–96 FC Bayern Munich season

1995–96 FC Bayern Munich season needs some working. Kingjeff (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hey Walter, your talkpage is on my watchlist and I noticed your comments to User:Dondegroovily. Just wanted to give you a heads up about the talkback interface. While User:Dondegroovily manually added the section heading, Twinkle actually adds the heading automatically. Clearly, some prefer the section heading, while others do not. That said, it may be beneficial to overlook the different preferences and simply respond to the message. Respond with grace, rather than react out of emotion. Just my two cents. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 23:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Understood --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Verification etc

Regarding your edit summary (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verification_and_validation&curid=13144608&diff=464531482&oldid=464531252]) - what comments on my talk page ? I'm not that bothered whether a few sentences are moved from one article to another, but agree with User:Dondegroovily's reasons for removing the tags - would you rather the tags were left cluttering the articles for another 3 years ? DexDor (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Wrong talk page, it was a different editor. The discussion is still open. Feel free to comment on it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The merge tags should be removed. You're the one who thinks there needs to be something particular on the talk page(s) to "allow" the tags to be removed so it would be helpful if you explained exactly what you want. DexDor (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the discussion about why the tags are required? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh! You did. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette Assistance

Can you please look into this? [7]. Thanks. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If the attacks have stopped, then I would let it go. If not, WP:ANI. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'll let it go. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the attacks have resumed -- [8] . YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not an attack. It may be using Wikipedia as a weapon, but it's not an attack. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Gorlitz. My initial assessment was correct.[9]--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Only partially. You accused him of being a user who was editing in the same area. That didn't pan-out. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Further update:[10] --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Then your suspicions were justified. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

And now we find out that not only did he have a past account, he has a concurrent account.[11] Don't worry about the spam, this is my last update.

Regarding WQA in general, if I can humbly provide some advice: Please be very suspicious when a new account with a few dozen edits finds himself bringing an editor with +50k edits and virgin block log to a noticeboard. I'm not saying my rhetoric was exemplary, but perhaps you should have ignored the report given the background of both editors. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I were suspicious. I just don't say anything, particularly when an investigation was ongoing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ken Iwao Change

I listed the footballer Ken Iwao as a Guam national. I have found at least one website that lists him as a Guam national. Please explain you change. Note: The Ken Iwao listing is on the page Shonan Bellmare. User:Oakley77 —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

I thought I did unlike you who did not. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

In fact, your biggest flaw as an editor is that you don't seem to use the edit summary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Re:

Whoops, my bad - I'll correct it soon. Thanks for the heads-up. Toa Nidhiki05 00:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm just glad that you're doing this. I'm glad to help when you hit an article I'm watching. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, someone has to it. Toa Nidhiki05 02:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

notice was already given

Re: Nick Cooper, I gave him notice of the WQA discussion, both on his talk page and on the article talk page. Just not using a neat template <g>. Collect (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You sort of did, yes. But you linked the header. The one I left was more appropriate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess I really think DNTTR works <g>. Collect (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup awards

Get yourself informed before accusing me of vandalism. I provided source and website while you, on the other hand, simple decided to revert edits obviously without even reading the edit summary. Next time try to assume good faith before falsely accusing users. 189.60.22.117 (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You were not accused of vandalism. The editor before you was and your edits were in the way. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, more correctly, the unhelpful anonymous editor made three edits, you reverted one edit and so I reverted the other two. Your edit was not affected. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Glass and Sutter

Hello WG. I thought that I had reverted the IPs removal of all mentions of Wendy Sutter in the Philip Glass article earlier today but it turns out you beat me to it. Good job. I did have one question. The mention of the onset of their relationship in 2005 seems a little dated to me. I would think that the relationship has progressed/regressed or changed in some fashion. If you know of anything that could be updated that would be great, on the other hand if you are happy with the page as is please don't worry about making any changes. Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been watching the article for a while. The anonymous user has continued to make the same changes to the article for a while. I have reverted all of them adding increasingly more stern comments. The anon must be informed that the edits are not acceptable. If the editor left comments explaining the changes it would be marginally more acceptable.

I'm sorry I don't have any updates on his relationship with Sutter. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Must be somebody in New York (where the IPs geolocate to) who has a bee in their bonnet about the whole thing. Thanks for your vigilance on his article and others. MarnetteD | Talk 21:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Suitcivil133

Hi Walter, I see that User:Suitcivil133 is starting to be a conflict with my edits, judging from my opinion he is a Barcelona supporter and any negative out look of the team he deletes as in the Real Madrid vs Barcelona 11-1. Ive done my fair share of research and its been noted that there was no proof that Francisco Franco "theatend" Barcelona, he also said that "Your description of the 11-1 game is also highly biased." I dont see how that was "biased" if that really happend? Can you please do something because I dont want to be in an edit war with someone that reverts my contributions. Then whats the whole point of updating the article? RealCowboys (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw that starting last night. I don't think that Suitcivil133 said that there was no proof, just that there was no reliable source. I'm watching the article and will become involved if needed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

1986 FIFA World Cup

Your recent editing history at 1986 FIFA World Cup shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Longwayround (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

See WP:AN3#User:Walter Görlitz reported by Longwayround (talk) (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Two Gomers

You recently posted some suggestions on the Two Gomers article. I was wondering if you could do me a slight favor as I am very new to wikipedia. You marked one of my references as a dead link, but I double checked it, and it does in fact work. I went back to try to complete it better, as you did with the rest, but for some reason, it's messing up other areas of the article. Could ask you kindly to possibly double check the link again, and if possible, help me insert the propper citation. All of the informaiton on the article is presented clearly on the link's landing page. If you could help me with this, I would be very grateful.

Also, please note that I have submitted a change for my user name in order to distance myself from this article. Now that I have learned a bit more about wikipedia, I can see how an administrator could assume that I represent the material that is being present, when in fact, I am not. I am simply a member of the running community that felt this podcast was worth documenting on wikipedia. TwoGomers (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't actually me that marked it as dead but a tool I was using. I can change that.

The COI would still apply to you as you're associated with the subject. A COI is not a prohibition from editing, it's just a warning caution that some material may have to be scrutinized more closely. I feel that having someone who is close to the subject is sometimes a good thing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

With that said, you are currently a single-purpose account and that brings its own issues to the table. You may want to branch-out. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: December 2011

You're right, I had forgotten to provide an edit summary. Sorry about that. See here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hungary#Possible anachronisms regarding historical Hungary flags for some information on what I'm doing right now. In short, I'm putting the correct historical variants of the flags of some countries where those have seemingly been misplaced or mixed up across quite a few articles. --Theurgist (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

¿3family6 _contribs is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas, and thanks for all you hard work on Wikipedia!--¿3family6 _contribs 15:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

More Beautiful You

Give this a look over, and tell me what you think of my work on the article.HotHat (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Madrid captains

Thanks for your help on referencing. I am glad I could find a source for the captains. Raul17 (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)