User talk:Walter Görlitz/Archived Talk to 2012-12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for the corrections

Thank you That's the second time within 24 hours that I see you cleaning up after me. Thanks for that but... how do you manage that, if I may ask? Is it just watchlist and/or recent changes, or do you use other monitoring tools that I am not aware of? Regards, -- Skysmurf  (Talk) 18:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's just that you hit articles that I watch. And I don't know if it's cleaning-up after you, it's just that when a page that I've watch changes, I tend to go in with "new eyes" and clean-up as per my understanding of WP:MOS and other guidelines. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
It's just that you hit articles that I watch.
Ah, that explains it then. To be honest, I'm primarily focusing on moving the reviews out of album infoboxes. I might do some other fixes in the process, but when I'm not sure I just leave that to others. Regards, -- Skysmurf  (Talk) 19:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Summaries

I will start making a mental note to include them in my editing. I am glad you are trying to make me a better Wikipedia editor. I just hope you like the content that I am working on. Have a great day,HotHat (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I love your edits! Thanks for taking the warnings in the spirit that they were intended. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Needtobreathe

I request your opinion on an interesting matter. Would you review and comment to a comment posted by a Single purpose account (admittedly a member of the band's management) at Talk:Needtobreathe (this diff). Even if the website isn't very reliable, it's an interesting question about how to accommodate the request in the article since it's probably able to be found in a stronger reliable source. Royalbroil 06:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Why!!!???

Hi Walter.

I must say, I am finding my entry into wikipedia extremely frustrating.

You deleted my entry "HelpMaster" claming it was not notable. On what basis do you make this claim?

I created a page for HelpMaster, stating the facts, as something that could be built on. It too was deleted.

HelpMaster has been around longer than almost all the other products on this comparison list.

What is your motive in deleting it?Thecoffeeboss (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the article was up for speedy deletion. I didn't tag the article but immediately recognized that it would succeed. See WP:NOTABILITY --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Steve Green

First of all, your website template needs to be fixed. I don't understand your reasoning for removing Whiteheart. It's the same as with Truth and The Gaither Vocal Band. I looked at the MOS and it says: "For individuals: groups of which he or she has been a member" He was not only a member, but a founding member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musdan77 (talk • contribs) 2012-01-12T16:49:01

Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts states "For individuals: groups of which he or she has been a member". However it goes on to say that "association of groups with members' solo careers: should be avoided, so I had it backward and I stand corrected. I know that he was a member of the first incarnation of White Heart although I believe he was asked to be a member not that he was a founding member, but that's a minor detail. I will restore the band if it hasn't already been done. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking for some advice

It appears (to me) that Hrafn is following me around on Wiki, seeing where I do edits and subjecting me to the same WP:Lawyering crap that he's pulled on Calvary Chapel to either do blanket deletions of whole sections of content or leave cryptic, unhelpful tags to recent additions forcing me to divine his intentions. He never adds info or does constructive edits - he simply drops hand grenades and waits for someone else to pick up the pieces. I'm not perfect. Sometimes my insertions don't meet rules or guidelines, but I'm trying to learn. However, I love to flesh things out and try to add shape and definition to pages - that's my passion. I'm also happy to fix things if pointed out, but I've stopped watching/editting two pages - one of which I've been trying to bring around for months (with little success) - because I've grown tired of his crap. Suggestions? I mean other than to man-up and stop complaining... Thanks -Ckruschke (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Get some examples and take it to either Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance or, as follow the suggestions at WP:WIKIHOUNDING. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Hope it doesn't come to that, but get a little tired of "the most unhelpful editor in Wiki"... Ckruschke (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
Wikiquette assistance is not manned by admins. I've been there in the past and have weighed-in on several issues that have been listed there. Sometimes attackers are intractable, but in other cases, the issues can be resolved. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I think I'm going to try at this point WP:Ignore all dramas as he attacks me and my edits in the Talk page and hope he gets bored with my silence. If not, we'll go down the path that you have suggested. I've been through enough mediations (as an onlooker) of people who don't understand that THEY are the problem to know that it's not fun. Thanks again Walter - always reassuring to talk to you! Keep the faith. Ckruschke (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Wiktionary FYI

On board means "On or in a means of transportation" [1], since you asked. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

OK Thanks.Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Your recent editing history at David Crowder Band 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. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 02:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The following are in chronological order:
For the record, it's after 2012-01-14T02:23:28‎ and so I'm no danger of going over 3RR, but I do understand the issue. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes I fully understand you but you have not discussed the dispute with the other editor. Even though i'm not an administrator, making edit summaries such as O look. See your talk page. Still below quality and references do not meet standards. sounds close to a personal attack. I agree that editors are sometimes hard to work with and continue to disrupt as much as they want, but giving inappropriate edit summaries such as this is not appropriate on Wikipedia. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 02:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Those are in direct response to an editor who is not cooperative. See the editor's talk page and his actions on the article's talk page (removing all comments and then only his and alternating between anon and signed-in). As for this issue, I have pointed the editor to the appropriate template and the correct usage, which was the issue here. Thanks for you concern and following-up. No offence taken BTW, and I appreciate the reminder. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, this is for the talk page, not the article space. I didn't realize that 3rr applied to talk pages, but I just checked and it does. Got it. Please address the other editor in question as they were violating talk page policy. I recognize that I should have left it after one revert and allowed an admin or other editor to revert. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 02:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 You warned about 3RR, not about WP:REDACT Although that may not be necessary as it seems as though the editor in question is trying to get out of Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Tests to Football squad player2

Hi Walter. I was wondering if you had any opinion on the tests I have made to {{football squad start2}} in the sandbox and/or in my userspace? Colours are an idea for a bit further down the line, but I think the one in the template's sandbox is of particular interest, because it's a function that we should be able to implement immediately. Regards, —WFC— 18:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

New MLS roster layout

Hey Walter.

I can't say I'm a fan of the new MLS squad layout. I don't like that you struggle to fit the entire squad on the same page, meaning you're scrolling up and down too much. Looking at the arguments given, it looks like it's going to win over, but I'm happy to tow the line! UncleTupelo1 (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've heard the "fit the entire squad on the same page" argument before, but I suppose I'm fortunate to have larger monitors at home and work that I can drive at high resolutions. At what resolution do you drive your monitor? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My screen resolution runs at 1366 x 768. It's not too bad, but I think it's going to look pretty ugly to a lot of people. I think that's the major argument against it, but aesthetically it feels a lot weaker. Plus it's going to need crossing over to all other MLS clubs, where as the moment it's still just applied to four or five clubs. UncleTupelo1 (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Six currently, and will roll-out to the remainder by the weekend. I understand the appeal of the old format, and I'm sure you understand the utility of the new one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Jappix

There is a problem, I see that Jappix has been removed, there was not informed...

Can you transfer the page on my subpage ? Thanks in advance ! — Neustradamus (✉) 09:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC) and — Neustradamus (✉) 10:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted, it was redirected to distributed social network. It doesn't seem to have an edit history either I don't know what happened. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
No there was an article before the new redirection. — Neustradamus (✉) 16:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The vote was taken. I'm sorry you weren't notified. I use a tool and it to nominate articles for deletion and the original authors are notified when listing articles for deletion. This is that notification. I don't believe it's my responsibility to notify everyone who has edited an article about a deletion vote. One thing further, you're not supposed to edit a closed deletion vote. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
But can you see for recover the Jappix page? — Neustradamus (✉) 11:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Ping? Can you recover the original page before the redirection, it is possible I know. — Neustradamus (✉) 01:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. I thought I had answered this. I'm glad you asked again. You need to read Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages and the follow its instructions. I am not an admin so I can't do anything. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I will try! — Neustradamus (✉) 16:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
After some months, can you see with other guys for recover the Jappix page to an user subpage? Thanks in advance — Neustradamus (✉) 17:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not my responsibility and I have no interest in rescuing the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion of protecting an Wikipedia page

Hello Walter Görlitz

Recently there has been a lot of vandalism in the El Clásico Wikipedia page but I cleared the information box. Could you or others protect the page as is done with the FC Barcelona and Real Madrid pages for example?

Thank you in advance.

--Suitcivil133 (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. Feel free to request page protection yourself. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. How do I contact the admins?

And which criterias must be meet to request an protected page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil133 (talk • contribs) 2012-01-19 15:42:01‎

The place to do so is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the help. Will give it a try.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Newsboys

Hi I edited your section on Newsboys before I created this account. The reason I edited the Newsboys Discography was because I personally have always found it allot easier to read it using the table and seeing that most Musicians have there music is such a style made me think it was the preferable style, this is seen with even musicians who have one album. Doing the Newsboys Discography was my first attempt at a discography and I would like to thank you for helping me learn if I where to ever attempt it again. I noticed that you put down that the Newsboys Album Devotion was of gold certificate which the source www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php disagrees with. Scorpian333 (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

gerrardconsulting.com

I reviewed the recent editing around gerrardconsulting.com links and agree with their removal. You mentioned "recognized experts" in one of your edit summaries, but I don't believe he is from an WP:ELNO#11 or WP:RS viewpoint. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

One was an external link, the other was a reference. They are reliable sources as they are written by a specialist in the field. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Sources please.
ELNO#11 states, "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people." Please address my concern that the external links do not meet this criteria.
Who says he's "specialist in the field" and how does this claim make the source acceptable. Please provide a source for your claim about his expertise, and please quote WP:RS where you believe it allows such sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
He's appeared on the subject at conferences. Therefore he is an expert. One of the links is the talk he gave at one conference. You're arguing from a point of ignorance and it's not a good place to argue from when we're trying to create an encyclopedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Walter, are you saying that because this guy "appeared on the subject at conferences" we must consider his self-published paper on his website a reliable source? Because that isn't so. Jonathunder (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm saying. If you don't like that answer, take the guy's site to WP:RS because they will back that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but you've not addressed either concern beyond requesting it be brought to RSN. That is separate from the external link issue, so I expect that's no longer in dispute. --Ronz (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. You haven't offered a valid argument and any actions to remove it will be seen as uncooperative editing. If you'd like to point me to where this private discussion took place so I may address your concerns I'd be glad to, but carrying on conversations in private is not appropriate. I see no discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I see no discussion at all. All I see is a reliable source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I think you need to take a break from this. I've been discussing two different issues, and have identified and even quoted the relevant policies/guidelines. You're treating them as one issue. Stop and read what I've written. --Ronz (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
For the EL you want to know who says the author is an authority in the field:
StickyMinds is the most popular testing web site. It is the online arm of the most popular testing magazine Better Software. They also host three conferences: StarEast, StarWest, and EuroStar. Paul Gerrard has published eight articles, most on the topic of risk-based testing. He is also mentioned in 16 other articles.
Do you have a source to indicate that he's not an expert? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
"This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people." --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at StickyMinds. When you have an understanding of what they do, come back to discuss. This is common practice in the software testing world. Every authority has their own site and this is no exception. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"I think you need to take a break from this." I'm going to take one from you given your escalating hostility [2] [3] [4] --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The hostility is a reflection of your increasing obtuse responses to plain questions. I'm glad you're giving this a break. Take the time to learn how to communicate well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
At least we both agree that you're hostile. I think it's best to ignore you until you decide to take responsibility for your behavior and attempt to follow our behavioral policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you just need to follow the common rules of etiquette so that you don't create hostility in others. I take responsibility for my actions but you sir are devoid of any responsibility and so I assume you're amoral. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Geez, that's a bit over the top. Please just stop. Jonathunder (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Absurd edit warning when rightly trying to remove false information

I am half Spanish and fluent in Spanish. I can easily see if an source is reliable or not. In the case of SeaBoy (which BTW is an banned user that has reappeared with an different username, he admitted so on his talk page) recent edits on the Real Madrid page and his inclusion of the false claim of Real Madrid being the most successful in terms of domestic and international trophies, is an absurd action considering the fact that such a claim has no reason on earth.

First of all the sources are unreliable blogs/football pages that are free for all to participate in. I happen to know a writer on that page (blachereport). His name is Manuel Traquente and he is not even 18 years old. The two blogs do not include the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup which is officially recognized by FIFA and UEFA as being the predecessor of the UEFA Cup nor do they include the Copa Eva Duarte trophy, founded and organized by RFEF and regarded as the predecessor of the current Spanish Super Cup. Therefore it should not be valid as a source.

Moreover this is a wrong statement as FC Barcelona have more domestic and international trophies. And I only include trophies recognized by either RFEF (The Royal Spanish Football Federation), UEFA and FIFA.

For further explanation and proof of me being right, see the Real Madrid discussion page or the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia pages of FC Barcelona. Both versions are using reliable sources from one of the biggest Spanish sportpapapers.

It is an untrue and biased statement that can not be proven by reliable sources therefore it must be removed.--Crashwheelx (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm 0% Spanish and can't speak it to save my life. I can easily see that this isn't about either club's record but is simply about fan bias. On Wikipedia we try to stay neutral, which is something that is best done by non-fans of the clubs. There is no false information in the one reliable source. The other two links are fan sites and should be removed, but don't throw out all of the material, and definitely don't edit war and get yourself blocked over it. Take it to the article's talk page to discuss there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

CC

Walter - I was in no way attacking anything you said in any of your posts. I don't know how you got this impression - other than to just assume I'm a jerk. I'm obviously not as experienced in Wiki as you are, but I've obviously come to you in respect to you honest help/opinions. Next time I wish you'd just ask me what I meant... Ckruschke (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Yes. Sorry. I was confused. Down with a cold and a bit tired and dealing with two other issues. Not an excuse for the confusion and I should go clear that up. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok. The venim caught me a little off guard, or rather alot, but I can sympathize - I've been known to jump down people's throats too when I felt like crap... Ckruschke (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

January 2012

Your recent editing history at Nobody's Fault but Mine 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. Radiopathy •talk• 02:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I can count, but the edits are less than accurate and I should tag every other editor with with either uw-tdel1 or uw-error1, but I won't because you're not worth the effort. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

It took me a while to realize what you were talking about, but then I finally noticed. I'm sorry, I guess I just like things neat and lined up. Zenkai251 (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Lol, by the way, how did you even notice I removed the space? Zenkai251 (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I noticed because it showed-up in the edit history. I watch changes not the current state. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, understood. I was just now tempted to remove that space in your comment........ Zenkai251 (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Barca and Madrid

Yes I'm aware of the discussions, and have already edited these pages to this end in the past and participated in the talk page discussions. I think you've been doing a good job keeping on top of them, and I almost posted on here to comment to that effect a few days ago. But the 'discussion' on this topic - particularly at Talk:Real Madrid C.F. - had descended into nonesensical name calling between a couple of editors who had ignored reasonable appeals to one of the few immutable policies of Wikipedia, the WP:NPOV. I didn't see how further discussion was going to convince them, and it looked to me like you'd given up and abandoned those pages, as you'd let the versions which make a mockery of the NPOV stay up.

I've found in the past that eventually in these situations that editors of this type either get bored or get themselves banned; it's a case of correcting the page and letting them dig their own hole. And as it goes, the better version has (touch wood) been stable for a couple of days! So don't let the trolls get you down - from what I've seen on the edit history of these pages you do a good job :) --Pretty Green (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent plan. I've just been sitting back since I don't really know about either club to comment. They're just two of a few clubs that are frequently vandalized, so I keep an eye out for that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute on Risk-Based Testing

Hi Walter. I wanted to comment on the discussion on Risk-Based Testing (talk) between yourself and talk. I think, originally, a valid point was raised for discussion. However, in reviewing the dialogue, I think the discussion has gotten very personal and emotional, and I think WP:AGF has been forgotten along the way by both parties. Reviewing your tone and choice of words, I think you have lost your neutrality and have let your feelings show through, and inadvertently contributed to escalating the problem. I think this has now gotten to the point that it puts the content at risk (no pun intended), and I'd like to plead for both parties to cease discussion until the air has cleared a little. I'll be posting the same comment to talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulszym (talk • contribs) 21:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind, and I got your email, but it seems the other editor doesn't agree. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I see that the other editor doesn't seem to agree with your advice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ministerial Infoboxes

Hi, Would you like to voice your opinion about this topic? I see you are an experienced editor, so if you want to, please contribute to the discussion. 174.7.90.110 (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I weighed-in on the PM article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but all I see is a comment above the secion I created that says that you need more details on the topic. I'm not really sure what your opinion is. Is there anything else you would like to say on the topic? (It's okay if you don't want to; don't feel that I am focing you to take part in the discussion) 174.7.90.110 (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Not sure why you created a new section when I had already started one, but that's not important. In short, I don't really care how it ends up looking and I'll let those who do discuss it. I just don't like vandalism or unexplained changes. I'll watch the discussion to make sure that editors don't impose page ownership, but otherwise, I'll be hands-off. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody's Fault but Mine

I don't understand your post to my talk page; please explain. -Ojorojo (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

LA Galaxy

I Don't know what you're talking about. Of course Juninho is on loan, I didn't update that he wasn't. Leonardo, however, was signed on a FREE TRANSFER, therefore is an official member of the Galaxy from here on out. Not on loan.

http://www.lagalaxy.com/news/2012/02/juninho-and-leonardo-return-la-galaxy-2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDallum (talk • contribs) 21:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't seem to get my response to go through on the CCM talk page

Walter, I don't want to have an argument. Certainly not in public. Could you please just navigate to my article and use my Contact page to send me an e-mail? Thanks, Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Race (talk • contribs) 00:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't usually communicate with editors outside of Wikipedia. The issue is simple though. You're not a recognized expert and so adding your page violates WP:ELNO. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

God bless, keep up the good work.

Once again, have a great spring! - Paul

Sorry, it looks like I forgot to Tilda this note appropriately.

Paul Race (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh

I think it's time to take Mies to AN/I (again). His fucking bullshit is well-documented--this is how he always wins debates. He lies, he moves goalposts, he pretends you haven't dotted the exact i's and crossed the specific t's he wants you to, and eventually just wears you down. This is well supported by his history and an RFC/U--that being under a previous username; he created this account specifically to avoid scrutiny. → ROUX ₪ 19:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well this edit was uncharacteristically childish: "I will answer yours just as soon as you answer mine." I felt like I was in elementary school again. But it seems that he is pushing his point, as are you, rather than trying to reach consensus. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem with him is, you need to nail him down or consensus simply cannot be achieved. A couple years ago at Talk:Commonwealth realm I had to ask him over thirty times for a reference for what he was claiming, before he finally admitted there wasn't one. That finally allowed consensus to be achieved--if you don't force him to provide a source, he just keeps arguing and arguing and obstructing the process. This is what he's been doing on Wikipedia for years, and has somehow managed to evade getting permanently blocked for it by always maintaining a veneer of politeness on top of his outright lies and distortions of sources. And FYI, that line was not 'uncharacteristically' childish; it is absolutely his usual MO. → ROUX ₪ 19:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Some folk never learn

Sometimes Wikipedia almost makes one lose the will to live. --Mais oui! (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Walter Gorlitz. Please do 'check' my addition. In trying to understand overlinkg, I'd assume it's not the case there. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions." You tell me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the clarification -- i.e no-linking to countries or constituent countries. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Overlinking

I've responded to your concerns on my talk page. Not sure if you're notified when that happens, so giving you the heads up here as well. GauchoDude (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You wanted WP:ELN

You posted to the talk page of our guideline, you wanted the noticeboard, I've moved it there. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

RFK Stadium

Dear Gorlitz,

I don't remember the exact edit I made regarding Robert F. Kennedy Stadium, but if it was in relation to sporting events in Washington, D.C., and specifically the Washington Redskins football team, you can be assured that the edit was correct and offered updated information or corrected something that was factually incorrect.

I am a native of Washington, D.C., a lifelong fan of Washington-area sports, and I work as a professional journalist and editor, as well as a fact-checker for a prominent series of sports publications.

I rarely make changes to Wikipedia, but when I do I can assure you that the facts will be correct. I daresay, if you know nothing about the Redskins or the history of RFK Stadium or Washington, D.C., sports, then you probably shouldn't be monkeying around with other person's good-faith changes.

If you'd like to forward me the page in question, and notate the change, I'd very much like to review it.

Thanks,

Brady — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.173.48 (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It was this edit where you simply write "[NO JOE GIBBS??]". That wasn't constructive, but I didn't remove it, someone else did. I just ponted out that it wasn't constructive. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Not Spamlinks

Hi Walter Shalom & God Bless you,

Sorry, but I'm new to Wikipedia & opening an account for the first time, I did have a look at what the guidelines for adding and editing to a page to some degree, but I'm not sure about trying to "Advertise?" or using Wikipedia as a "Soapbox?" I'm not sure if you were monitoring what I have typed in? or if you are you working/monitoring the page on behalf of Wikipedia? or are you someone who keeps a close eye on this paricular Wikipedia information page regarding various Christian music genres?

At the point my edit of the page was stopped and yourself? someone else? or Wikipedia interjected/intercepted my edit? I was recounting a track listing of a former band I was in before I was Born Again in 2004 with a history of my career leading up to being Born Again and to present day.

My true intention was not to advertise or sell the music, demo's or album's mentioned that I have been involved in as none of it is available for public consumption anyway & and none of the music I had discussed thus far was on sale at any outlets, all were mainly demo recordings!! Plus I do not want to sell any music I peformed on before I was Born Again, it is just to give a Chronology of my musical career right up to the point of my rededication to the Lord Jesus Christ in October 2004 and since.

I would appreciate your input and any advice regarding contibuting to the Wikipedia pages as I am a virtual novice regarding getting started on usng Wikipedia.

And could you tell me in what capacity did i use it as a soapbox? or as Avertisng as I am new to all this I do not know which guidelines I have crossed? I would appreciate some feedback from yourself if you could please.

Thanks for your input and response

Love & Peace in Jesus name

John Carson — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Michael Carson (talk • contribs) 03:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi John. You added an extensive essay on your life to the article on Christian rock. It's not appropriate, especially when you removed a heading and a paragraph in the process. If you want to write about yourself, I suggest that you first see that you qualify to be written about by checking the WP:BAND music guidelines and also the WP:NOTABILITY notability guidelines in general. If you think you meet the criteria, create an article for yourself. As for that particular article, it should be a general topic on the subject not include an 800-word essay on your conversion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Basque Seperatist

What do you have against it? Oakley77 (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing. Let them separate if they get the legal right to do so, but until they are a separate nation, they are Spanish first and they should not be pushing their agenda on Wikipedia, especially not on football articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you hinting I am pushing a Basque Seperatist agenda? I am from Florida, and currently reside there. I know nothing of this agenda.Oakley77 (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not hinting or stating anything here. Is there an article where I made a comment about this? I've done so on a number of occasions where a Basque flag has been added to a football player article when the player is Spanish, but I appear to have done so to one you edited as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't watch that article so I don't know why I would change it. Feel free to make the change yourself. But back to the point, when you say "the same was done" it implies that it was done somewhere else, and I infer from that that I commented on that somewhere. So unless you can point me to that first instance, I'm not quite sure how I've offended you or why my comment would be considered offensive. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Again, misunderstood when i was only trying TO HELP :( Offended me? You have not offended me, not here nor ever. I was only saying, relating to this sentence you wrote above "but until they are a separate nation, they are Spanish first", that i assumed Mr. Oakley had already done this in other articles, that was all, hence i said he did THE SAME in Real Zaragoza's article; the change has already been done by me, i also did not infer you had to revert it.

I agree with you 100%, the autonomous communities exist but the players (or actors or businessmen or whatever) are first Spanish, period. As you can clearly see, i don't agree with what OAKLEY did, i agree with what WALTER GORLITZ did. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

All clear now. Thanks. Now we have to hear from Oakley77. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fb team Minnesota Stars FC

Template:Fb team Minnesota Stars FC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK

Howdy Walter, I need further clarification. Is changing [Canada|Canadian] to [Canadians|Canadian] or [Wales|Welsh] to [Welsh people|Welsh] acceptable? As oppose to merely deleting. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Good question. I'd ask on the overlink article's talk page, but if is the lede, I would personally avoid that change. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I think you & Ghmyrtle, need to compare notes. See my talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to join in a discussion with others at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. I'm sure you know, however, that the real issue is to do with GoodDay's editing behaviour - it's unsurprising that he creates dissension when he is editing on the site non-stop for 18-20 hours every day, across thousands of articles! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
That's not fair, Ghmyrtle. GoodDay (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
It's quite fair, but I'll strike it if you prefer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
You should strike it, please. GoodDay (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
No prob. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
;) GoodDay (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Just "Canadian". Tony (talk) 12:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

One Day Too Late

Are you able to retrieve the other charts for this song? I'm not an expert on those. Calabe1992 19:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I am. I have a difficult time on the Billboard site and don't know where else to look. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Me neither. BTW, the blog post was linked to from Skillet's web site so I would say it is reliable enough. Calabe1992 19:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Bingo. I'll update it here. Calabe1992 19:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Changes to Thousand Foot Krutch's 'The End Is Where We Begin Page'...

Greetings Walter,

My name is Jay Heilman and I run KingdomBuilderTV.com (not a blog, but an upcoming website) as well as being the founder of ChristianMusicReview.org over seven years ago. I have contacts from management groups, publicist firms and record labels in which I get my information from which I believe are the "most credible sources". The info I updated on TFK's 'The End Is Where We Begin' page including the release date and track listing came directly from a press release that I received from Hoganson Media Relations. I also have an official pre-release copy of the album as well, so the information in which I put on there is 100% accurate. I even noted when making the changes that I didn't know how to reference something on Wikipedia, so that's why there was no reference. CMR is one of the most trusted sources of artists reviews and info in the Christian music industry having been recognized and quoted by several national publicity firms over the last seven years. So I wanted to take a moment and let you know where my information came from. The release date is in fact April 17, 2012, and even though the radio station website who had posted a post citing April 22nd as the release date, is not correct. If you look at the date on a calendar, April 22nd is a Sunday, which is clearly not a Tuesday release date as with all other releases. I don't change information based on speculation, but as to facts which are given to me by official sources, which are indicated clearly in the editing history of the page as to being provided by Hoganson Media Relations, a publicity firm that was officially hired to publicize this release for the band. I know you are trying to protect the sanctity and accurateness of Wikipedia entries and I respect that, but you really should look at where/who the info is coming from. Thanks for your time and blessings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.194.128 (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lede define the narrative as a "myth, in the academic sense"?

An RfC has been created at Genesis creation narrative#RfC: Should the lede define the narrative as a "myth" in the academic sense"?. Since you have been involved in this discussion, I'm informing you about it here. This is not an attempt to canvass, because people on both sides of the dispute are being notified. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see it on the article's talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Move

Good edits on the Move article; I was going to do that myself at some point. :) Toa Nidhiki05 20:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The song titles need to be quoted and the deluxe edition merged-in. It was just a bit more work to do it right than to keep it slightly wrong. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


Thanks

Thanks for helping out with the Lecrae article. I'm new to editing and it helps me when you point out flaws in my edits. Thanks again! Spideyrocks28 (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to do it, and I don't consider them as flaws in your editing, I see them as you learning. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Montreal Impact Roster numbers.

Walter:

What counts as a reliable source

"Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form)"

According to these rules you pointed out the OFFICIAL broadcast of the Montreal Imapct v Houston Dynamo in the Disney Pro Soccer Classic. it is "third party" ... it is from a source that has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and it was "made available to the public in some form" ... that form being live broadcast.

there is no reason that squad numbers verified with the source of the OFFICIAL LEAGUE BROADCAST cannot be considered a reliable source by the very rules you quoted me. i will be making the update again based on these rules and that my source adheres to them directly. do not undo them again.

173.165.207.241 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The official broadcast is fine. Reference it, but it has to be verified. Can it be verified? No. It's not a WP:RS. As I state on your talk page, a printed roster from the match would be adequate. Several teams have provided rosters, with player numbers, for their pre-season matches. In short, live broadcasts are not RS, but if there's a free archive of it, it can be referenced. However, you're not referencing it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
how can it not be verified? any person can/could watch the broadcast and see the same numbers and players as i did. that you and others chose not to is not the issue ... it isn't "not verifiable" it is that you do not wish to verify it using the same reliable source that i did. those are not the same thing.173.165.207.241 (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Just read the policy and stop arguing about the policy with me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
i did read the policy ... word for word ... and my source is considered a reliable source per the written rules. verifiable only means that it comes from a reliable source ... it says nothing about how easy that verification must be ... there is ZERO reference to it having to be written word or on the web for it to be verifiable ... it only says the information must have come from a reliable source that was available to others in "SOME FORM" ... a broadcast is "available to others in SOME FORM" ... not to mention your version of the numbers is wrong by your own rules anyway since there are only 4 players with numbers on the montreal impact website.173.165.207.241 (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Red it again. Focus on "However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources." It's near the top. As such, this source is not reliable. You can always search the archived talk where the point is made that a live broadcast is not a RS as it's not published. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
whatever dude. you know nothing about MLS as proven by your idiotic contribution to the Whitecaps MLS page fiasco. you didn't even follow your own rules when you undid my edits and did your own ... i had to fix them so it actually reflected what was on the impact website since you have your panties in a bunch about that being the only valid source of information. if you want the page to have less information than what is out in the public sphere than that is on you ... i don't really care i was just trying to be helpful since the impact were being so lazy. eventually they will update their page and you will see i was right about the numbers.173.165.207.241 (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I know a lot about the MLS thanks. And the edits I restored were the state prior to your edits. They have not been vetted, so thanks for checking them. It's not just the Impact. It's the MLS. That page is driven from data on the MLS site. I don't doubt that you're right about the numbers, you're just not right about policy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Now that the roster has been updated, all of five calendar days later, your roster numbers were more-or-less correct. However, that's not the point. WP:RS was the point. Perhaps you'll take a look at the policy and perhaps you'll understand. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Old Testament

You are both at 3RR. I've warned the other editor also. Dougweller (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The other editor was already warned but he removed his warning. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Yes, I will when I get time to read through the entire debate and background, after this RfM closure brouhaha on Genesis creation narrative (and on talk) has died down, which I am still struggling to keep up with. St John Chrysostom view/my bias 02:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

For fixing that typo in the {{uw-delete1}} temp! Achowat (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

How do you rollback, while leaving a comment, telling why you are rolling back an edit? Allen (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You install Wikipedia:Twinkle or similar. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I tried installing Twinkle, but it didn't work. Is there any other way? Allen (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
There are a few other tools, but I can't remember their names. Sorry. Try asking on the Twinkle page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups might do the trick for you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
What does "Navigation popups" have to do with rollback? Allen (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
It allows "one-click revert". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
How in the world does someone do a "one-click revert" with "Navigation popups"? As far as I know, the only thing it is used for is a preview of a link without clicking on it. Allen (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
According to the instructions: File:Revert_popups.jpg it's done in the view history. You can preview the changes there without doing a diff and revert from there as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I still don't understand how that can be done. Allen (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Spaces

I was taught in school that there are 2 spaces between sentences and after colons. Allen (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:PUNCT "Only a single space follows a colon." Two spaces may be applied after a period but the server will only send out one so one might as well add only the one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

colspan attribute

According to the W3C spec for HTML, ( see http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/tables.html#adef-colspan ), "1" is not only a legal value for the colspan attribute, it is the default value. So the layout in the article is not only correct, but more convenient and easier to edit. Cheers, -- Elphion (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It's incorrect and will be removed by several scripts that monitor for correctness. Cheers. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Why do you say it's incorrect? It's part of the standard. I can understand bots removing it to avoid transmitting extra bytes, but there are situations (like this one) where the default is useful as an explicit value. It ought to be possible to tell the bots to keep their paws off. -- Elphion (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
OK. I should not have said incorrect, but the bots physically remove it and it causes more data to be transmitted during the edit. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

incident on noticeboard

with reference to this [5], i was asked to provide proof so i gave, but another admin seems not happy with my reply., Also i could not understand your reply clearly so asking here, i was not sure to goto ANI or Etiquettefor my complaint, do u suggest that i should move the thread to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct or should i let it remain, sorry for the trouble. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 12:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

How to contact a moderator/admin

Hello Walter

I would just ask if you know how I can contact a moderator or admin. I have a suspicion that a former editor who has been banned from Wikipedia due to vandalism etc. has reappeared under a different name.

Thank you.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You would report the editor to an admin: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the answer Walter. Appreciate it.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

WPXMusic

Hi Walter, I proposed the change to the main page 3 days ago here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christian_music#Member_list. – Lionel (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

FC Barcelona

Reference 7 leads to here Which is copyrighted to FC Barcelona. When HasperHunter is unblocked just point him to that, hope that is helpful. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Reference for Andy Rose's Citizenship

Here is a link that shows Andy Rose has British citizenship, not Australian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilcokr (talk • contribs) 09:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Music of Canada

Hello. Regarding the discussion at Template talk:Music of Canada, in which you have been involved, a MedCab case has been opened and User:Lord Roem has kindly volunteered to mediate. Please indicate at the MedCab page (here, specifically) if you accept Lord Roem as an intercessor. Thanks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Removing legitimate redlink

I did not originally create the redlink - I merely reverted its unjustified removal. Redlinks that can and will become articles are perfectly legitimate. See WP:Redlink. That redlink was actually part of a standard layout for Infoboxes of World Cup articles. Such links to previous and next iterations of regular repeating events are a well established standard practice on WP. Roger (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Template Cleanup

Hi Walter. An editor moved your support vote at Tempalte talk:Cleanup from disscusion to response with this edit [6]. It is not something I would have personally done, but it was done in good faith. Unfortunately it has meant that your !vote has been recorded twice. It might be a good idea to strike the moved one and explain what happened. If you give me permission here I can do it for you. It has already been noticed and some might not realise it has been moved by another editor. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Whitecaps stats

I've been working on a List of Vancouver Whitecaps FC records and statistics. Any feedback on stats to add, remove, change would be appreciated. Should we update them constantly or wait until the end of each season (a bit harder to keep track).

I'm still trying to find a good source for career stats instead of having to do the math myself. Right now MLS and Whitecaps site only shows by season and doesn't include other competitions such as Canadian Championship. The club media guide has some info though but only comes out once a year. I'll probably setup an excel spreadsheet for the time being. One95 (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Walter Görlitz/Archived Talk to 2012-12: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 March 2012/Template:Music of Canada

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Lord Roem, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bryce Alderson

The article Bryce Alderson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

HP ALM vs HP QC

Walter, I'm referring to Comparison of issue-tracking systems and my recent changes you undid.
May I know why you think there is still HP QC product?
I've been working for HP for more than 8 years and for couple of last years working on HP ALM (the new name of HP QC) and I know how it can be confusing.
The very last version of HP QC/ALM that was released under HP QC name was HP QC 10. From HP ALM 11 on, this product is just called HP ALM.
Please, refer to [HP ALM update site], there are used the correct names for each of the product version.
Regards,
Pepan0 (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Bryce Alderson for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryce Alderson until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Walter Görlitz/Archived Talk to 2012-12: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 March 2012/Template:Music of Canada

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Lord Roem, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Brian Sylvestre

Per your request, I have moved Brian Sylvestre to User:Walter Görlitz/Brian Sylvestre and marked it as a userspace draft. —SW— spill the beans 23:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Overlinking - Reply

Hi there WALTER, VASCO here,

i thought that overlinking was linking more than ONCE, in the Feher article, Hungary and Portugal were only linked once in box and once in body of article, i thought that was OK. Sorry for any incovenience, i will unlink the countries (but would very much like to know what harm it does to have a country linked in a footballer article).

Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you have already reverted me. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, can you clear my doubts about OVERLINKING please? --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Check WP:OVERLINK. What you state is WP:REPEATLINK (more than once in an article). While overlinking is linking to
*Avoid linking plain English words.
*Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions.
and other items. I would argue that if the city is linked, beside it, it will carry a link to the country. However, that's my opinion and you should see the rest of the guideline. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Modest Barnstar
In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.2.142 (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

inre Sarah's Choice

Thanks for looking in. Considering the sheer number of decent sources available, improvements were ridiculously easy to do. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for all work you've done to EU2012.

User:Walter Görlitz/Bryce Alderson

I moved the Bryce Alderson article to your userspace per your request at AfD. Rlendog (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. When you recently edited Dan Muckala, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page What's Left of Me (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Stanley Cup playoffs

Thanks for closing the debate on the talk page. I think that after having this same discussion happen year after year, we realize we all have better things to do than argue about the same thing year after year. Canuck89 (have words with me) 20:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand that I'm in the minority in thinking this is trivia, but I still feel the need to try to make that point every year. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2012 broadcasting rights

Mr Walter, Can you put next information in the page UEFA Euro 2012 broadcasting rights: Television>Rest of the world>Colombia> RCN TV, because this page is totally protected and the edition is only limited for Administrators. Thanks a lot !!!

This is the source [7]

Cheers!


--Scoelho86 (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No. But you can. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
You might want to consider adding a request on the article's talk page rather than mine. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


ok, I will try it, thanks for your answer! --Scoelho86 (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

The admin is being unreasonable and applying an essay, WP:BRD, as a policy or guideline and has chosen not to discuss his revert of a valid comment:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Stanley_Cup_playoffs&diff=prev&oldid=486644953 which is not WP:OR as claimed (see article's talk page). I opened discussion but the other editor, who is the admin who has blocked me, was not discussing. Admins involved in supposed edit wars themselves should not block. Shouldn't they post the case to ANI or elsewhere? This is an abuse of power. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Before giving the reason for my unblock, I will just quote a few policies I feel are relevant. Firstly, WP:BLOCK:

Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators.

WP:Administrators:

Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor) [...]

WP:Edit war

An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions [...]

Because BWilkins has twice overridden the other editors' contributions at the page, 2011 Stanley Cup playoffs (first revert, repeated revert) it is my personal opinion that he was edit warring, although this is debatable depending on interpretation of the circumstances.

Additionally, BWilkins saying to Walter the most important part here: if you are willing to self-revert on the article immediately after being unblocked, then I will unblock you ... now made it seem that he was using the block to try and force Walter into self-reverting. BWilkins clarified that his intention here was simply to help Walter discuss and build consensus, as indicated by his comment self-reverting shows proof that you're communicating towards consensus instead of blind reverting. However, requesting a self-revert in the circumstances can have the unfortunate effect of appearing to be forwarding what appears to be his side of the dispute - even if the request was well-intentioned and his only involvement in the dispute was trying to guide Walter.

I see no need for a block here, as I believe you are both capable of discussing this on the talk page and letting a consensus form there, rather than resorting to edit warring. As such, I have unblocked Walter, however, this should in no way be taken by Walter as a suggestion that his edit warring is okay. If either of you continue to edit war over the article you will find yourselves blocked. Discuss on the talk page. - Kingpin13 (talk) (edited 20:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC), see [8])

Walter, I only monitor the article for problem edits. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you had not seen the timeline of events (phrase was added, I removed less than 30min later). You then re-added the same phrase two additional times, even after I opened the discussion with you. Edit-warring is edit-warring, and I'm not involved otherwise (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I too monitor the article for problem edits. But there was no problem and I have shown on the talk page. So undo the block as you can see I was discussing in the correct place, the article's talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
If your first action is to revert your latest reversion on the article until there is WP:CONSENSUS to include the phrase that was added this morning, then YES, I will consider that the project no longer has need for protection from edit-warring and will unblock you (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Hang on! That was not my first action. You have misrepresented the facts. Look at my edit history. I removed your comment here, I moved it to the article, were I believe the discussion belongs, and I responded. While I was doing that you got angry at me here again and reverted. You are as much to blame for this as I am. You hid the discussion on an editor's talk page rather than the article's and then you get into an edit war over something that I have shown to be a correct addition. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what I said (once again). If you promise that your first action after being unblocked will be to self-revert your most recent edit on the article, then yes, I will believe that you are following the attempt to gain consensus properly. Then, discussion can take place as to whether there is consensus to add that sentence. Right now we have this:
An IP added a sentence this morning.
I removed it as unsourced OR
You reverted me
As new consensus to add had not been obtained, I removed it
You reverted again.
Meanwhile, I started the discussion on your talkpage to ensure you realized where step 1 and step 2 were. I honestly believe you are still not fully aware of the sequence of events, especially based on your edit-summaries and actions so far in this. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I won't revert because that would put me at WP:3RR's bright line. I will continue to discuss. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
No. Self-reverts do not ever count towards 3RR. Besides, you're already blocked for edit-warring ... this is you proving you believe in discussion as opposed to blind reverting (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
To answer your first question, yes, I will discuss and not make any changes to the article.
To address your incorrect timeline.
  1. Anon added statement
  2. You reverted
  3. I restored
  4. You added comment here
  5. You reverted
  6. I removed comment here
  7. I added comment to article's talk page.
  8. While I was doing that but before the edit was completed, you responded here
  9. I left TB template on your article
  10. You reverted at article (probably at the same time
  11. I reverted at article.
  12. I found myself blocked by an admin
Anything I'm missing? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Ignoring the above for now, you still have not responded to the most important part here: if you are willing to self-revert on the article immediately after being unblocked, then I will unblock you ... now, as promised. Otherwise, it's clear that you were blindly reverting, and not interested in the discussion portion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
No you're ignoring the most important part: you abused your power and you're misrepresenting the facts:
2012-04-10T16:02:38 (diff | hist) . . (+1,217)‎ . . Talk:2011 Stanley Cup playoffs ‎ (moving from my talk page and responding)
2012-04-10T16:09:54 (diff | hist) . . (+26)‎ . . 2011 Stanley Cup playoffs ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Bwilkins (talk): Please see talk page. (TW)) (top)
Which of those happened first, the discussion or the restoration of correct material? Oh you hadn't actually looked.
To answer your question directly, I do not plan to self-revert because it's a good edit and I plan to add http://www.nhl.com/ice/recap.htm?id=2010030325 as a reference. It will either happen in the next 23 hours or after or when someone else steps in at the article and fixes it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Walter, I've unblocked you, however, that section heading you just added was not necessary, and I've reverted it. Understand that you're getting given a chance here, but if you continue like this you will be re-blocked. I've warned you about your edit warring in the past, and left that incident with the impression that you could be trusted to not blindly edit war again and to instead discuss civilly on the talkpage. Please don't prove me wrong about that. - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Thank you for changing it. I was debating coming back after adding the reference and changing it to April 2012. Thanks again. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Nigel Neita

I contested the speedy deleton as it doesn't meet the A7 criteria. The article should however be PRODed as it fails WP:GNG & WP:FOOTBALL see the talk page for more info. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The rules for speedy are too narrow. PRODed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Paraguayan War

Hello, Walter. I believe we haven't met yet. I'm not sure if you're are aware, but the article's name is Paraguayan War. I was merely correcting those wikilinks because many were called "Paraguay War", or "Triple Alliance War" or "Lopez War", or similar. Since you have reverted all moves I made, I hope you'll reconsider and revert them back again. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Already commented on your page and I'm undoing my change. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Out of curiosity, are you interested in the Paraguayan War or were you merely doing maintenance work? --Lecen (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. My father was Paraguayan and my siblings are Argentinian. I have an interest in the mate article and so it's on my watchlist and I saw the series of changes there. I didn't even know about it before this series of changes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I asked because I'm interested on bringing the article to Featured level and I would like to receive everyone who likes the subject to share their thoughts about it. --Lecen (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. Not enough time. Running late now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
That's fine. Thank you anyway. It was goot to meet you. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, Walter Görlitz. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Template:Music of Canada". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 20 April 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 17:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Music of Canada

Though I'm no longer in the discussion, your Hail to the Chief example, has pushed me into sideing with 'exclusion'. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't been a discussion for a while, it's mostly just repacking of sound bytes, but thanks for the support. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Dag nab it, that Hail to the Chief example has pulled me back into the Template discussion & caused me to re-open the Infobox at Canada discussion. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The Crimson Armada

It is a "fact" that the band has Christian members, hence there is no need for the word 'claim' which implies that there is some dispute over this notion. This has nothing to do with 'removing referenced material'. -Cntras (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Did you read the reason for restoring? You didn't explain the removal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Load Testing tool update - thanks!

Hi Walter,

After making an update I realized that you already made a comment that only tools with articles should be listed there. Sorry about that and thanks for the correction! You replied faster than I could type a question. Thanks for watching this page! Btw I noticed that MicroFocus and Microsoft don't have an article dedicated to the tool. These two entries point to Visual Studio / Borland article, respectively. Is that a better way to go? Pls let me know, I'd like to make contributions that add value and don't take anybody's time for reverting/re-editing. Thanks again, Goran Gbegic (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed SilkPerformer and clarified VS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Gbegic (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

This is to notify you that, though you have not been named, a matter to which you are related has been raised at WP:ANI. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Template:Music of Canada, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Donald Fraser

Hi, My name is Donald Fraser The former lead singer of "Don fraser & Detour" Although some of the dates and events are slightly inaccurate in a couple of places, I can attest to the fact that my son (who bears the same name as myself) has most of the events and facts correct. We were not a hugely succesful band from a marketing standpoint, but we considered ourselves succesful none the less. We did in fact achieve the goal we set out to. We cared only to cover our expenses and bring what we consider to be the greatest news ever reported in the history of mankind. I will not pretend to be as succesful as any of the bands we grew up listening to, but we worked hard at our craft, and strove to be as good as we could. We didn't want to give to God, that which cost us nothing. We sacrificed for our mission and paid a dear price as did our families. We worked full time jobs during the day and played gigs at night usually for no pay, and at times we paid for the priviledge of entertaining the clientel of the clubs we played such as Gazzaries, Night Moves, Club 88, The Sportsmens Lodge,Fm Station, The Trubador, and many many others. I'm sure you are familiar with the method many of the clubs used throughout the eighties of "The band has to buy $250.00 worth of tickets and sell them for $500.00 to their friends. That is rareley succesful for a band that works 40-6- hours a week and then practices 15-20 hours. I don't mean to complain. I would still be doing it if I were younger and gladly. i only wish to make the point that we were serious as a heart attack about what we believed we had to do. People told us that that Christian stuff was all phoney. that if we really believed that those who die without knowing Christ as their Lord and Savior would spend eternity in torment with no hope for reprieve, You would be willing to crawl over broken glass on your hands and knees just for a chance to save them. In truth, that would save no-one and be utterly ridiculous. But, what we did back then was our sacrifice of time and sleep and money, and time away from our families, all in hope of reaching someone with the good news that Christ died willingly on the cross to save all. But also knowing that most would find this to be laughable, and reject Him and perish anyway. Knowing this, Jesus chose to die for all that he might save some. It's true. We stayed true to our message and our God because He loves all. Every last one of them. But you can't save a drowning man if he will not get in the boat and insists that no-one is drowning. God Loves You and all. For this reason we did what we did because this was our field of broken glass. Most of us are without regret toward what we chose to do. i know I am.

Thank you if you were able to read all of this.

I pray that God will richly Bless You and Yours, Don Fraser — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.173.26 (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not sure what this has to do with your article on the website. It's not being nominated for deletion because of inaccuracy but because the band doesn't meet the notability requirements, listed at WP:BAND. It's not a slight against you or whoever created the article. It's just a way of keeping Wikipedia relevant. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Current/Past Members of the Beatles

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really knowledgeable on the subject. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Firefox article needs you!

Hey Walter, Your edits have been dearly missed at the Firefox article, and it has fallen into disarray. Thanks! Trewyy (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

'Scoring' vs 'Skaters'

Started a discussion at Talk:2012 Stanley Cup playoffs. I will abide by a consensus there whether to use Skaters or Scoring. It's a minor point, but we don't use 'skaters' elsewhere in the hockey pages, so it should be discussed. Please make your points there. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

defending Y2K

Walter, thanks for dumping that bogus Alydaar claim to Y2K. I initially encountered Alydaar when they were allegedly based in New Orleans & that was pretty much the high point. Every contact set off more alarms. DEddy (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Christian/Gospel performers

Maybe you would be interested in the discussion going on here: User talk:Boguslavmandzyuk#Alan Hall (musician). It seems the people I am talking to contest the notability of CCM performers. Personally, I thought I had cleary established his notability of Allan Hall, but my claims are being flat-out rejected without any consideration and reasons to say why they are wrong, the sources I provide (which are considered valid in every single article, excpet when it comes to Mr. Hall apparently) are being said to have no value, amidst claims that "The Dove awards are pretty much meaningless". --BoguSlav 03:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Beatles infobox

  • I think I found a good solution to the template issue, take a look at the proposal now, it might satisfy everyone's concerns. — GabeMc (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal Attacks, etc

HotHat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just left some harassing messages ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]) on my talk page, apparently angry at me for redirecting Bart Millard to MercyMe, and requesting me to provide sources on 7eventh Time Down his way (basically wanting the whole world to dwell around him). This user was also trying to convince me that his awkward routine for creating musicians is great (creating the article on the musician, their first album, and uploading the cover within minutes of each other, covered at WP:MUSICIAN. Nice try, BTW). Also, I need your help solving issues at 7eventh Time down, a new Christian rock article. RHaworth (talk · contribs) filed an AFD, claiming that I'd said the article was notable only because their song "Alive In You" was charting at Air 1 (another thing HotHat was griping about). Really, I was trying to find that source at Air 1.com, as C.Fred (talk · contribs) said that that source might save the article. I provided sources to the official site, facebook, twitter, and more. UF, XLinkBot removed my link to the Alive In You music video on YouTube. However, I was having formatting issues with Template:Youtube, and gave up, taking a risk. Anyways, the AFD is an obvious bad faith nomination, and I will request WP:SK.Qxukhgiels56 (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see personal attacks or threats. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
And for the record, I think it was premature to redirect the page to the band's page as the subject meets WP:BAND. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Firefox article needs you

Your edits have been dearly missed at the Firefox article. Come back! Thanks! ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 00:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Your recent remarks

You recently said that another editor was: "either wilfully wrong, ignorant, or a boldfaced liar." [15] This strikes me as contrary to WP:CIV. Would you be willing to strike out, or remove this comment? Sunray (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No, because it's true. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
How is that assuming good faith? I know you are frustrated, but I would suggest that it is better to leave the field than add to a toxic editing environment. Sunray (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Miesianiacal's reserves of good faith owed were tapped out probably two name changes ago. Why he has changed his name so many times (and not, it is worth noting, via WP:CHU) is an exercise best left up to the reader. Familiarize yourself with his history before you start castigating those of us who have spent years being browbeaten, bullied, and wikilawyered by this POV-pusher. Who, I should add, was actually blocked for a not-insignificant period of time a while back for harassing me. → ROUX ₪ 07:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
As a side note this was the edit not the one you provided and M has stated before that it's the official national anthem. Notice the phrase he copied and pasted: "Since the proclamation of 'O Canada' as the National Anthem in 1980". So I'm sorry. I'll go in and clarify on the template talk page and ask him to stop being a liar. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
In the same talk page you referred to me with a edit summary: "what an arrogant editor you are Dkriegls". I don't think you can blame this all on Miesianiacal (regardless of your history) as you are ignoring WP:CIV with other editors on this talk page as well. Dkriegls (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
True. I can blame that on you and your arrogance. WP:NPA states that we should comment on content, not on the contributor. So I am violating that though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent personal attacks, even after being given the opportunity to retract. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I won't be appealing, but when the block is lifted I will be reporting you for watching my talk page in what appears to be you looking for an opportunity to vindicate your earlier chastisement. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Good luck with that. I had nothing to vindicate, nor do I hold grudges. Let me know when you report it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
In short, if no complaint was lodged against me in an official location, your watching my talk page is stalking and not becoming of an admin. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
You might want to list the location of the report here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
See WP:ADMINACCT: "Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, privacy"
Failure to communicate – this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought).
Have a nice day. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to watch Administrators' noticeboard: Incidents --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I watch WP:ANI. However, you are required to advise me directly when you actually report someone there. I eagerly anticipate it, misguided as it is. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I will. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Walter, I've been watching your talk page for ages now (since the Christian metal/Armor of God thingie) and I'll be happy to take over the block if it will help you feel less stalked. It looks clearly justified to me. You are way off on your objections, watching talk pages is very common, and there is no requirement to have a complaint at an "official" noticeboard before issuing a block. Quite a few of the blocks I make get nowhere close to a noticeboard, I try to head off problems before they get that far. And having people not watch your talk page is nowhere close to what is meant by "privacy" in ADMINACCT, that's parking outside your house and following you to work, or publishing confidential emails you send. Nothing actually posted on Wikipedia is private at all though. And as far as "Failure to communicate", I seriously don't think you need extra warnings about personal attacks, you are an experienced editor well aware of the policy and apparently willing to walk on or over the line. You are of course free to post at AN/I about this, but I really wouldn't advise it myself, what with the glaring personal attacks you made in the thread just above this one. I'd suggest that rather than think about revenge, you use this time to think about ways you could modify your approach to editing. Just my thoughts... Franamax (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks I didn't realize that admins were permitted to watch specific editors for problem behaviour. As I said, I know that made a personal attack and I doubt that this will change, so I'll sit out the block. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Obviously there are limits, I can't do the on-wiki equivalent of parking my admin-car in front of your house for no good reason either, I have to show a long-term pattern if called on it. And at some point I would have to look at the other "sides" involved in various disputes you were getting into, if I wanted to repeatedly block you. But those limits are not reached here IMO. And honest dude, it would be a lot better if you didn't use variations of "You're stupid. You want me to apologize? I'm sorry you're stupid.", I used that back when I was 7 years old on my older brother. ;) Franamax (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Benny Hester

Hi Walter. Thank you for responding. There are many references to include on my article. CCM Magazine, Billboard Magazine, MTV.com, Huffington Post, CBN, etc. Have tried to post those unsuccessfully. I could use your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennyhester (talk • contribs) 21:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

How can I help? Have you gone through Help:Contents/Links? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:BITE

With new users, you need to take the time to explain to them why their edits were reverted if they are not obvious vandalism. I refer specifically to your actions in response to edits by User:194.105.120.70 back in March. "Unexplained addition" isn't really a reason to undo someone's edits if they are not obviously unconstructive. And you were obviously in the right to revert copyright violations, but you should let the user know on their talk page why we cannot accept their edits, instead of continuously reverting "vandalism".-RunningOnBrains(talk) 16:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I usually do on the second and subsequent unconstructive edits I see but I don't usually do it with drive-by editors. In this case, I tagged the anon's talk pages and opened discussion. I don't see the problem. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

AIV

I can understand the frustrations in dealing with vandalism all day every day (and please don't think I'm hounding you, I actually just realized you are the same editor I talked to in the above section), but the world will not end if this editor isn't blocked. The important information that I was referring to was that apparently he had recently been warned as an IP for the same actions; I likely would have blocked him if I had known that. I'm not psychic—although I wish they would add that to the admin tools ;)—so if an editor is IP-hopping or socking please be sure to note that in your reports in the future, as the responding admin would likely want to take that into account. Thanks, and happy editing! -RunningOnBrains(talk) 17:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

How does X work?

After your Citation Barnstar, something happened preventing me from adding a couple of new references. Bennyhester (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Refs Not Blacklisted

This was posted at the top of my edit page . Not sure how that prevented me from updating. I could use your help or advice. Bennyhester (talk) 06:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, that shouldn't prevent you from doing anything. It's a message to a date maintenance script (bot in wikipedia terms) that patrols pages and corrects date formats.
You don't need to put the help template if you leave talk on someone else's page. You put that on your own page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh. Do you see any errors? What exactly is happening when you're trying to add the reference? What's the reference? You can just put the reference here or on your talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's a copy of the notice:

Edit conflict: Benny Hester Someone else has changed this page since you started editing it, resulting in an edit conflict. The upper text area contains the page text as it currently exists (without your changes). Your version of the page (with your changes) is shown in the lower text area. You will have to merge your changes into the existing text in the upper text area to incorporate your edits. Only the text in the upper text area will be saved when you press "Save page"; all other changes in the lower text area will be lost. Please do not just copy the text from the lower text area into the upper, unless you're sure that you want to undo all other changes made while you were editing this page. Rather, please try to compare the two versions and combine them into one text that preserves both your edits and any improvements made by others.

There are two parallel columns. One says "Your Text", the other "Stored revision". Not sure how to handle it. Do I need to add an access date to my references? DO NOT WANT TO LOSE MY ADDITIONAL WORK AND MY NEW TEXT. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennyhester (talk • contribs) 06:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That's partially my fault. You made a change to the article and then started editing again. While you were editing, I made a change. Just go back in your browser and select all of the text and copy it. Go forward again and paste it in. I'll make my changes to the article after a few hours. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennyhester (talk • contribs) 07:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Message from Jquevedo007

Hello Walter Görlitz,

Thank you for placing back all the previous attributes. I don't know how to go about doing this. I am Joseph Quevedo, I am a professional recording artist. I have recorded locally, nationally and internationally. I am a christian drummer and percussionist and have recorded with christian and non-christian artists. from famous artists to local up-comming artists. I have been on tour with a few artists as well. I do this for a living. I am what they call a back-up drummer. A back-up drummer is the drummer that comes in only when the actual drummer is ill or cannot make it. I step in for the band and let the show go on. I have never been the lead or main drummer or percussionist. Warner Music, Sony, Epic, Word Entertainment and Intergity Music use me as (on Call). I have played and recorded for a few srtists for example, Ricky Martin, Lisa Marie Presley, Jaci Velasquez, Crystal Lewis, Marcus Witt, Michael W. Smith, Amy Grant, Jars of Clay, Felix Rodriquez, Misael & Freedom, Sound Sphere, Mary Alessi, Livan Trujillo, Face 2 Face, Ed Calle, Arturo Sandoval, Tito Puente, Jr, Etc... I am named on most of there CDs on some I never was named. It didn't bother me because I was paid and in actually that is what matters not the recorgnition.... I am a humble man. But for some tht I am on the cd, I am not found on wikipedia and I wanted to fix that. how can i do this in one shot? who can i do this will your approval? I do I correct this issue? do you have an email, I can sent it to and you edit it for me? Or do I re edit it and you appove or them? I will only list or edit, what is correct and not remove or vandolize the encyclopedia. please let me know. Be Blessed, my brother! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jquevedo007 (talk • contribs)

Your help is needed...

I have tried to edit Wikipedia to correct a few flaws it has. I do hope you recieved my last message. I, Joseph Quevedo am a full-time recording and live musician. drums and percussion recorded locally, nationally, and internationally for several big time and small time artists. I am listed in there original hard copy cd. I wanted to simply add my name to those cds, I contributed my God given talents and only to those cds. How can I do this...? I have tried and you have taken it off. I need your spproval to do this right. Please let me know how... Can I simply redo them and you approve or do I send you can e-mail with the artists and my role on the cd? They are not many of them that needs to be corrected. Please advise...

Thank you and be Blessed. Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jquevedo007 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Userpage

I can indefinitely semi-protect it for you if you'd like. One would hope that autoconfirmed users know how to use talk pages. Killiondude (talk) 06:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer but let's see if our friends return. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Jay's Musik Blog

I have found his Linkedin resume, which may intrigue you, but I think his is a professional reviewer. Even though, his website contains the word blog in it!HotHat (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Take it to WP:RS. The way I read "currently writing for NewReleaseTuesday, in addition to my created site jaysmusikblog.com" is that the reviews that NRT won't take he publishes on his own blog. Not sure what to make of it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I went and read USERGENERATED policy, which it says "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I take this as he was the Lead Reviewer for Christian Music Review, which satisfies the policy, which he is currently a featured reviewer for New Release Tuesday. So, I consider him to be professional.
I'd support WG's what I think was statement: the personal blog = not usable. Formal sites = usable. As he said, however, try your luck on the reliable sources noticeboard (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Good work on sourcing that. What article did I remove that from. It sounds reliable. Should we mention at the RS notice board before restoring? I don't think they'll balk. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, why not give it a go on RSN! I am up for having my edits here at wikipedia crutiqued because it will always make me a better editor.HotHat (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Here is RSN proposal, so does it look good before posting.HotHat (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
It looks fine. If any info is missing, they'll ask about it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
This was for Gold (Britt Nicole album)‎. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Correct!HotHat (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The Christian Music Review Blog

They are listed as featured reviewer on NRT, so his website contains more credibility because he post his reviews on that site, which means they must meet some level of standard in order for him to carry the featured reviewer tag. Even Kevin McNeese, the sites founder is considered to be a featured reviewer, so it must be rather difficult to get that seal of approval.HotHat (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ashes Remain

Hello Walter Görlitz, I am wondering with concern to the album release date should it be day month year or should it be month day year, which should we not follow WP:STRONGNAT, since this group is based out of Baltimore, Maryland. I could understand if non-American that it should be the former, but they are an American based band so it should be the latter.HotHat (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I put in my opinion. You were right. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Kingsway Communications

Is this record company consider a major label?HotHat (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

They were a distributor of Christian music in the UK (and to the world) in the 80s and 90s. They also signed a number of artists to their own label. Graham Kendrick is probably the most prominent of their UK signings. They also distributed European bands to the US. They later were involved in some important worship albums in the late 90s and early part of the 2000s with a guy known as Matt Redman and an album called In Christ Alone: New Hymns of Prayer & Worship. They also happen to have released some albums by British artist Ian Smale that are popular in the Christian New Wave movement in the US (If You Can't Shout Saved and Life Begins at 30 using two different band names). In the UK they were distributed by Kingsway while in North America it was on Star Song. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

New Article

Will you give Rend Collective Experiment a look over, when you get the time?HotHat (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks great. Two charting album assures notability. I made a few changes to the lede but otherwise it's good. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

HELP ME PLEASE

Go look at my talk page one editor is trying to get notable stuff deleted from this encyclopedia.HotHat (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I saw the notice before I saw this request. I responded at the AFD. Feel free to comment there using a similar response. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Canada overlinking

Well yes: you wonder why a reader who's just embarking on a substantial article on Canada would want to divert almost immediately to the article on the Atlantic Ocean, don't you. Tony (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy Cherry

Dear Mr. Görlitz,
Are you talking about me with your comments or the user named Qxukhgiels56? I was just curious.
Sincerely,
HotHat (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Echoing your comments. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay!HotHat (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
And directly addressing Andy Dingley. Notice the "@". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
That's fine your "Echoing your comments" was enough for me to be satisfied!HotHat (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

VeggieTales Question

Walter - I'm dealing with what appears to be a single user logging in on multiple anon accounts who is continually editing List of VeggieTales episodes and adding videos that he appears to be getting word of mouth as I've been unable to independently verify any of the movies even after doing an extensive Google search so I have no idea where he's getting the info. It appears that his/her info is accurate (as he tried to enter the "Robin Good" video for months before it came out) and I've left messages on every single one of the logins Talk pages asking/begging them to simply supply a ref to the upcoming video, but if it was a fansite or blog it probably wasn't valid. However, I haven't had much (any) success and was looking for suggestions. If you look at the revision history, basically everyone of the anon users you see there was trying to add these unverified videos (which is why I think it's the same guy/gal). Getting old continually reverting the same material, but am I being too anal? What are you thoughts? Thanks - Ckruschke (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

The article needs reliable sources for inclusion. If you would like, I could add the article to my watch list and support you. Alternately, you could request page protection. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I think if any of these people would respond to me negatively, I'd be seeking your support on the page. Since none of them have responded at all, I'm not asking you to add more pages to your list - I can revert the nonsense on my own.
I thought you had to have alot of malicious edits in order to rate having a page protected? With three or four nonsense edits a week, are we there? Ckruschke (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
Page protection is not a hard-and-fast rule. You can have a page protected because an anon damages the article but that anon's IP changes frequently. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it appears that the block would have to be across the Veggie spectrum as I've edited out the same unreferenced "future" info on at least five different pages and the Veggie template. Not worth the bother for someone else in my mind... Ckruschke (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Samestate

Hello, I was wondering do you think this is notable under MUSICBIO.HotHat (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BAND #2, yes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

All Sons & Daughters

Do you think this one is notable at all?HotHat (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Per #2 again, yes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
But I would incorporate the New Release Tuesday material and use it as a reference rather than have it as an external link. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Frontline Records

Hello. You asked if there's a bot that will fix redirects. There is a bot that comes along and fixes double redirects. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Mennoniten

hi walter, ich habe nur rudimentäres wissen über diese religion. kannst Du das tun? im artikel über die mennoniten in der deutschen wikipedia habe ich die hitler-nähe oben kurz angesprochen und in einer langen fußnote begründet. vielleicht kannst Du ja etwas damit anfangen. ich habe den eindruck, dass den mennoniten daran gelegen ist, mit der "braunen" vergangenheit offen umzugehen. grüße aus köln, Maximilian (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable doing the edits. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Article scrub

I would greatly appreciate an article scrub by you on Season One if you find any mistakes fix them please! Thanks,HotHat (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, it is a darn good album if you want to check it out at Spotify to see my point! It is a album that has may twists and turns with its longevity.HotHat (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Looks good. I think you've got the idea. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"You're doing enough yourself"

Yeah, you sure are. Walter, 'give-as-good-as-you-get' is not the way we operate here, even if it seems so at times. And even if that's a fellow fan of whatever sport you're discussing at this page and it's all in good fun, you should find a fangeek forum to use anyway. I was ready a day ago to warn/block a new and disruptive editor, let it go at the time as it seemed to be calming down - and now I see it's still happening, but you've taken away my clean shot. So you are in the sights now as well. Or to translate, this is your warning to cease making personal attacks. Article talk pages are used to discuss the merits of proposed changes to articles, not the merits of the editors propsing changes. Thanks & regards! Franamax (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

SudoGhost

Hi

It looks like he is now stalking me :)

As you can se here: Talk:Ubuntu_(operating_system)#Wubi

He is now questioning official documentation

Thank you for your time SilverWolf7 (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
PS

I seems he (SudoGhost) thinks that this is personal attack on him. I just want to point it is not. It is remark on his way of dealing with things. He undid my edit without knowing anything about line I added. And I did pointed him to official faq and other Wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverWolf7 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Input

You can go here and have your say on the band notablitiy.HotHat (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Will you look here, and tell me what you think!HotHat (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
A few WP:MOSDATE issues, but I fixed them and it looks sufficiently notable. Be sure to add them to the list of Christian worship music artists‎. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Why have some external links on some pages been removed?

I'm new to editing on here but I was wondering why you removed external links I added? Did I do it wrong or are they not needed or what? They links were to verified twitter accounts so they were right. Clash6361 (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:EL and particularly WP:ELNO #10 (Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter tweets, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists.), which is what I listed when removing the links. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

pdf files for UEFA Champions League matches

Do you have any idea where on UEFA's website has the pdf files for Champions League and Europa League matches are? Kingjeff (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

My user page

I have a list of articles on my user page that you can edit or start if you like. Kingjeff (talk) 04:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Look

Dear Walter Görlitz, I need you to look at chart notability at Notability (music).HotHat (talk) 07:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Plus One article

Hi Walter,

I am a French Christian and, actually, I am translating in French you article about Plus One.

It seems there is an oversight in this section :

Formation and early years: 1999–2000

Plus One began to take shape as early as 1998 and formed by a manager named Mitchell Solarek, when 18-year-old Sacramento, California-boy Nate Cole was joined by 21-year-old Gabe Combs of Pittsburgh, California, 22-year-old Nathan Walters of Lakeland, Florida and the 19-year-old Jeremy Mhire, who had been engrossed in vocal studies as a junior on full scholarship to Southwest Missouri State University. In a pattern of chance and happy accidents, suggesting a bit of destiny at play, Cole and Combs had known each other from mutual music circles while growing up in Northern California and Nathan had initially heard about the new group through an acquaintance of Nate’s. The group came to complete fruition with the arrival of Jason Perry, who up to that moment had been focusing on his role as starting fullback and defensive end for his high school football team. The youngest member of the group, The name Plus One refers to the members of the group, plus God.

in the middle of bold part. There is no talk about the fifth member Jeremy Mhire.

Could you complete this part and inform me when it will be do ?

Thanks a lot,

God bless you,

Laurent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franky-68 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Bad edit

I made an incorrect edit, and I now understand why it is so. Your rudeness and sarcasm regarding my edit is not appreciated, please try to be courteous when telling other people about their edits. Dar5995 (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Anons

I noticed your recent statement that "While anons are not all vandals, it's more often the case than not". Do you have figures to back this up? --John (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have figures to deny that? It's a subjective statement that my edit history backs-up. It's also the case that the edit history of the editor to whom I was responding at the time backs up. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism's edit history seems to support it as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I am not seeing figures there at all, so I will take that as a "no". I do not have figures to refute your statement but I think the figures are there to be found. I will have a look for you. --John (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought so. It took me a very short time to find WP:HUMAN which strongly suggests that based on surveys most IP edits are constructive. If you have evidence that contradicts this finding, now would be a good time to share it. Otherwise I am afraid it looks like you are completely wrong. --John (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
You have found the opposite of what is being discussed. We're not saying that anons are not constructive but that there are more anons that are vandals than there are registered editors who are. It looks like you're completely wrong. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
So you mistyped when you wrote "While anons are not all vandals, it's more often the case than not"? That would certainly explain it. It was a noticably daft thing for an experienced editor to write, hence my highlighting it with you. You could redact it if you wanted to. --John (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I did. I should clarify that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, it showed real class. Take care. --John (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. Thanks for pointing-out my error. I was focused on other things last night and have more time to be precise at this point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Good Time page

I wasn't sure if you were an Owl City fan, but I noticed that you make a lot of good edits to the page! It looks nice. I wanted to let you know that I am working on a new page for his song Good Time, User:Toontown59153/Good Time (Owl City song). If you could help add info and stuff that would be great! Thanks for the help! Toontown59153 (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to clean and monitor pages for vandalism. I don't add a lot of material. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay! Toontown59153 (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Question

Why this edit? [16] Those wikis will most likely exist in the very near future. Is it not SOP to put the links in place beforehand? Erikeltic (Talk) 18:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Will they exist shortly? There's no guarantee that they will play for the club. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Were the transfers not official? If so, why do we have them there at all? Erikeltic (Talk) 20:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
There's a difference between the transfers or signings being official and whether the players will achieve notability per WP:NFOOTBALL: "Players who have appeared ... in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable". If they never play for the first division side may not be considered professional and as such no articles should be created for those players. With that said, if it's certain that they will play on a fully professional team, having a WP:REDLINK is acceptable "Articles should not have red links to topics that are unlikely ever to have an article". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Erikeltic (Talk) 01:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Earthquakes925

Walter, just a heads up, he's reverted his user page and put your photo back up. Also he's vandalizing California Clasico putting unsourced statements back on the page without references. Gateman1997 (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Been observing these goings on too. Deal with it in a zero tolerance manner and do not give them any material to feed off of. --Τασουλα (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm out for now and will allow others to deal with the editor. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I reported the editor on WP:AIV and he has been blocked for a week (the sock was blocked indef). You may want to email oversight to get the outing removed. Sædontalk 02:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I've deleted his user page and the revision from your talk page, which should be a good enough temporary fix until an oversighter can suppress it completely. Parsecboy (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The SineBot signing of it needed to be rev-deleted too - I've done that now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Huh, I had looked at that as well, and it didn't show up as visible for me. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for your vandalism reverts. Pine✉ 06:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Football Kits

Hi,you recently removed an edit I made regarding the Arsenal FC away kit. I just wanted to thank you for bringing my attention to the copyright rules and I also thought I should let you know that another user is doing a similar thing on the following page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%80%9313_Arsenal_F.C._season ...thanks again for the heads up Goner 16 (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Goner 16

You're welcome. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Walter Görlitz, just to update on what Goner 16 has stated above, 2.102.205.235 (talk · contribs) continues to ignore my warnings and chooses to add back the logo kits. Could do with someone keeping an eye on the matter. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure it is. It appears to be an anon. The real solution is to fix the kits on the commons. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Antiseptic Bloodbath

Would you mind giving the article a little time to build up reference sources next time before you push out the deletion request? Not quite 4 hours between creation of the article and your nomination... just sayin'. 5minutes (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually I would. I understand the subject and know that it will never meet notability criteria. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
See WP:NALBUMS --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I know the notability guidelines and the subject as well, Walter. No need to be snarky. 5minutes (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't mean to be snarky, just realistic. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hello Walter Görlitz

I would ask whether it was possible for me to delete the user page history?

So that it looked like the user page history of an user who has not yet written anyting on his user page.

So it would look like this:

"Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Suitcivil133. If in doubt, please verify that "Suitcivil133" exists. Start the User:Suitcivil133 page Search for "User:Suitcivil133" in existing pages of namespace User. Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.


Other reasons this message may be displayed:

If a page was recently created here, it may not yet be visible because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes and try the purge function. Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternative capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title. If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was the page I created deleted?."

I hope you know what I mean.

Thank you very much.

--Suitcivil133 (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

An admin would be able to help with that request. Not sure if this would fall into the current Wikipedia:Deletion policy or not. I would start there and branch out. You might be able to request a complete deletion of the page which would include history and then you could recreate it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your excellent help as always.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you again Walter. Do you know where I should ask for such a favour? I am only interested in a clearence of the user page history (that part where you tell about yourself). Do you know someone who might know what I should do? Thanks.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where, but you could just tag your own user page with {{Db-u1}}. I'm not sure if you can add a reason or if you can request that history be deleted as well, although that may come with the territory. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Logos in football uniforms

Hi there. I've reverted all of your recent changes that removed football kits from articles. I agree that having the logo in the shirt isn't ideal, however the proper solution is not to just delete the entire kit from the article, it is to find the individual layer with the logo and edit that image to remove the logo. If you're unwilling or unable to do this, give me a list of images that have the logos in them and I will do the edits for you. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Feel free to see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Logos on kits. I will be reverting your addition of copyrighted material. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

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. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Really? Where? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Check again. Someone else accidentally removed it when they added their response to the thread above it. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Saw and responded there. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Kits

Hello. I propose a compromise. I take off the jersey sponsors (TMN) and the logos of clubs (FC Barcelona) and you guard the logos of manufacturers of sportswear (Adidas, Nike).--Principal adjoint (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Truce?

Last night was an unqualified mess. We both acted foolishly, and I personally have no desire to continue it. I'm withdrawing the AN/I case. What I'm going to do is I'm going to edit out the logos (when they're not PD), but leave in the PD Nike and Adidas logos. That will mean that each file will have a totally blank version and one with no non-free content but with logos. It's up to you and the people at the Wikiproject to decide which version to use. I have no preference. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Combatting flagcruft

Do you think the time has come to have an article improvement tag akin to {{overlink}} to make editors aware of overuse and misuse of flags? I lack the technical expertise to make one, but I am beginning to think this might be a good next step. --John (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that it would be an essay at best since there are two vocal opponents of the position. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I should explain. You are currently having a rather unproductive argument regarding one area of one of the two recognised exceptions to the rule against using flags, these being sports teams and military battles. I was thinking bout the 90% of flagcruft which falls outside these two subjects. --John (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. It appears that this is a more divisive thing than expected. Who knew.
Also, the former exchange on my talk page was not appropriate, so I removed it. Pedantic arguments are not much more useful than discussing with people who refuse to acknowledge your arguments. ---Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they're not acknowledging your arguments, they just disagree. And when so many people disagree, perhaps you should consider that you might be wrong. – PeeJay 00:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. The point isn't that they disagree with anyone, it's just bad form to not acknowledge the points that another person is making. Whether you are right or wrong is not the point. And for the record, three people held to one side and three held to the other so you and McE are just as wrong as I am. I am not interested in your twisted and patently false logic. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure pal, whatever you say ;) – PeeJay 11:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Lecrae - Gravity

I'm working on an article for Lecrae's upcoming album. I thought you might be interested, and if you want to work on it, feel free to play: User:3family6/Gravity (Lecrae album).--¿3family6 contribs 21:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really, but thanks for the invite. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
That's fine, just thought I'd offer. You're welcome.--¿3family6 contribs 00:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Canadian magazines

Re: your edit summary questions, I've been gradually converting it to the table format since January, when it came to my attention through AFD; take a look at the edit history. As for the redlinks, those may indicate article subjects we should have but don't yet, so I wouldn't remove them without confirming that they aren't notable. Your help in developing it is appreciated. postdlf (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

U2

I know, but other people edit that page, too. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


Noahjoe1

Thanks for reporting this account. He's turns out to have triggered the edit filter several times, so he got several messages about his behaviour, even if they weren't recorded on his talk page. I've blocked him for several days. If he repeats his vandalism after his block expires, he should be blocked indefinitely.

Thanks again for watching over our content! --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Punk template

Green tickY Done thanks for the heads-up. benzband (talk) 08:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Quick Question

A year or so ago, Wiki had a project where they had listed 100's of pages that were either stubs or had no references looking for editors to improve these pages. I don't think I have time to make major improvements to pages - such as joining the Christian Music project that I see on your home page - but something like the above was a way that I could feel I was improving Wiki in small, bite-sized ways. However, I can't seem to find this page anymore. Ideas? Thanks - Ckruschke (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Not sure I've seen that page. You might want to check Special:SpecialPages to see if it's there (arrogantly assuming that you haven't already). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Hadn't checked there - didn't know it existed. I do very little looking around on WP... Thanks again. Ckruschke (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Facedown Records

Hi there. You've helped us at WikiProject Punk musicout with Christian punk related things before, and I'm currently trying to get an overhaul of record labels going, so I just stopped by to see if you'd be interested in handling Facedown. More details are on our project talk page. Jasper420

Talk:List of Christian metal bands

Me and 3family6 are trying to come up with a restructuring by subgenre, similar to what I did on the hardcore and punk lists. If you have a free moment, perhaps you could stop by and give some input?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is inaccurate, I won't read it anymore... (I'm sure you don't care)

I added a talk section about the page "Christian Hip Hop". You reverted it back twice to its incorrect state. I won't go back and forth with you. I'll just stop using Wikipedia and use a reputable on-line encyclopedia. Day to you. Deshonj (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)deshonj August 28, 2012

Sorry to see you go, but I think you're confused about what accuracy means. When you remove material that someone else has written, and has added a reference to, because you disagree with it, that makes Wikipedia inaccurate. When someone with a fringe opinion states something and it's recorded, that could make it inaccurate too, but one must simply restore that balance, not remove it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

asking for some input

Hi, I noticed that you are watching the Amish page and helping to keep it clean. Perhaps you could have some input into the Jakob Ammann page where a small edit war has been going on? Check the history and make whatever suggestion seems best to you. Thanks! Mikeatnip (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No. I'm not a subject matter expert. It is affiliated to areas that I understand and I just monitor for vandalism. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Adam Cappa

This is his B-DAY! I confirm all birthdays through twitter pages listed on all of the artists websites.HotHat (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I asked here because you are requesting a block

I thought since you are requesting a block, you would be able to answer. The talk page is fine; however, it appears it is not obvious disruption. Calmer Waters 19:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand now, and did a self-revert. The editor is still not communicating although today, the editor did not engage in any genre warring. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
No problem, just was wondering if I had missed anything, as you might have a better understanding of the article's subject. Unfortunately, with the editor's past history of non-communication (either because they don't grasp English well enough or just don't plain want to communicate) it may only be a matter of time until ... Anyhow. Take care. Kindly Calmer Waters 19:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Skillet logo/name

Actually that wasn't a test, someone has done the exact same on the Game page and I was inspired (so to speak). I have looked through the guidelines and I didn't find anything that specifically said this wasn't allowed, sorry, K. Kane (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there any moderators we can talk too to resolve the situation maybe? Kane (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I nominated two of the images for deletion as breaches of copyright. Once that decision comes down, we'll know if it's safe to use or not. And to be clear, I completely misunderstood the initial purpose of the edit, but now that I see that it was simply removing the text and replacing it with an image, it's an acceptable edit. Explaining that in the edit summary would have helped me to recognize that. The only outstanding issue is whether the image is or isn't allowed to be used. The fact that a similar text-only logo on a backdrop caused the removal of the prior band image doesn't bode well for the continued use of the logo. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I forget to describe the nages sometimes, my bad. Kane (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Both were determined to be too simple. I self-reverted in both cases. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, glad we got that sorted, I hope there no more issues that arise in the future. Kane (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

re my ebooks

Hi Walter re yours and Douglas comments to me yesterday about my ebooks .My specialist interests are indeed poetry and art hence I thought my kindle ebook on these topics would of interest to a reader of Wiki (I certainly have not done this for 'self-promotion'),my ebooks are entirely written for educational purposes and priced accordingly the nearest Kindle allow for foc ! My hundreds of edits to Wiki over the past six years have been entirely motivated by this desire which I believe conforms to my understanding of Wiki's purposes as well ), in my view Wiki are going to have a problem in the future as clearly ebooks are now a major publishing force and will grow even larger as indeed Wiki itself has replaced hard copy encyclopedias.But of course I accept your actions and will continue to support Wiki with edits in the future Kind Rgds Brian Ichthys58 (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you show that you are a recognized subject matter expert? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
that would depend Walter on how you define 'recognised' as a poet I have won an international first prize on the leading net website Poetry Soup and had published over 800 blogs thereon in regard to art and poetry and have introduce thereon many many poetic forms...and judged thereon over 200 member contests .I have had articles published on other reputable poetry net magazines inc SketchBook and Amaze and have had published two ISBN books one on Poetic Form and one on the 'American cinquains' of the Scottish poet 'William Soutar' both of which have been independently reviewed on reputable net mags (I can give you links if you would like to check them out).I have only studied and practiced art as an amatuer interest for over the past decade and am by profession a retired qualified accountant of over fifty years practical knowledge of that subject (having worked for both US and Uk corporations).In the area of Christianity I am a committed evangelical Christian having been born again in 1987 and my publications arise from my discipleship and similar studies etc over some 27 years now .Best regards Brian Ichthys58 (talk) 07:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't define it. Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Further reading does, depending of course on where you included your e-books. If you can prove that you're in compliance with those guidelines (or proposed guidelines) you should be able to add them back while quoting the sections. If, however someone questions your addition, the best place to take them the places that WP:ELBURDEN suggests. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Walter but I guess I'll leave my ebooks reverted from Wiki...... no doubt they will come to light and benefit others elsewhere other than Wiki.rgds Brian Ichthys58 (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Third Day entries

Walter, I did not keep a copy of the text that I inserted on the Third Day band page, so I'm not sure what part of it you thought was not neutral. As the founder and CEO of Gray Dot Records and Executive Producer of Third Day's first CD to be released on a national level, I think I have a very good overview of that time period. I have plenty of written documentation such as their original multi-year Recording Contract with Gray Dot if you care to see it. Do you have the original text that I posted. If so, please send me a copy so that I can correct what it wrong. Gray Dot Records played a huge part in making Third Day a success and I would appreciate having the facts available to anyone interested. Marty Bush MartyBush (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I suspected that you were in a conflict of interest when writing about the subject. One of the nice things about Wikipedia is that every edit is kept, so you don't need to have kept a copy. Here's what I removed. The phrases that are particularly irksome can be found in bold below.
After many long days and nights of promoting the band to radio stations, concert promoters, retailers, etc the band began to get national recognition. As this happened, a number of unscrupulous so-called christian record executives began an attempt to recruit the band and get them out of their multi-album deal with Gray Dot Records. The band went as far as hiring an attorney and even threaten to break up if they were not released from their Gray Dot contract.... Reunion Records was soon sold to BMG who decided not to honor the agreement with Gray Dot Records forcing Gray Dot to file a lawsuit. BMG's team of high-powered attorneys were able to find a loop hold[sic] in the contract and after several years or litigation in federal court was found not obligated to pay Gray Dot additional royalties.
The most offensive part was that you inserted the material immediately before a reference. That reference supports none of the claims you made. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
May I also point-out that none of what was written was actually supported with any references. We need to ensure that the material is supported with verifiable and reliable sources. Your memory of the events, however accurate they may be, do not meet either criteria. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I will be happy to supply references. I have boxes of court documents as well as the original multi-album recording contract between Third Day and Gray Dot Records with all of the bands signatures. Is there somewhere on Wikipedia that I can upload these legal references? My objective was not to be offensive, but to rebut the incorrect statements referenced and provide more history on how Third Day became successful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartyBush (talk • contribs) 20:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Marty. I don't know how that would support statements such as "many long days and nights", "unscrupulous", "so-called christian", "get them out", "decided not to honor" and "find a loophole". In short, your statements were not neutral and that's was my original reason for removing them. They were also not supported and that's why they had to be removed. You can't fix both with your box of documents. There's nowhere to upload these legal documents, but if they're court records, they're online. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Berlin peer review

Could you help do the Berlin peer review? You can find it here. here. I know the questions may or may not seem obvious. But I'm looking for detailed answers. Kingjeff (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes

Any third party would be able to tell you your grounds for removing that content is not applicable at all in this case. You may be successful at deleting content but don't think I'm dumb enough to actually think your reasoning applies here. Know that I am smarter than you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grayhat551 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Please read the comments left on your talk page and don't threaten me. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No one is threatening you. Please show me where you are being threatened. The only one being threatened here is me, by you, who keep putting up warnings on my talkpage of being kicked off. (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2012 (PST)

Your threat is implied. My tagging of your page is not a threat. All I can do is try to help you become a better editor. I have been trying for a month now but you don't heed the informative tags. There are procedures that must be followed to do that an I am following them. If you are feeling threatened, you don't seem to act that way as you continue to perform the actions that require me to warn you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There is an implied threat? You really do make shit up. Wikipedia is not my life, I just jump on here once in a while and add some stuff that I know to be true and most other people of familiarity with the situation would also know to be true. That stuff you were disputing I had proper citation for - and you know it. (Just to clarify, that is NOT an implied threat). Whatever your reasons for taking it down they do line up with wikipedia. This site is about adding knowledge, not taking it away.--Grayhat551 (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes there is.
Please read what wikipedia is not, particularly WP:NOTEVERYTHING. This addresses your first and last sentences or points.
The stuff I'm removing is not supported by the links you provided as references. As simple reading shows that. They're also primary sources, which don't make particularly good references.
I'm also removing the material because you are not using edit summaries. I placed that warning with links to pertinent articles in August. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
And I should clarify that I'm not saying or even claiming that you're making things up. Please see WP:V and WP:RS to see what I'm saying. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh really? Then please show me why you keep deleting this:

The university is also home to Redeemer Pacific College, Trinity Western’s constituent Roman Catholic college. RPC is administered independently from the university by a Catholic faculty. Courses in Catholic studies are offered, and a liberal arts curriculum in taught in the Catholic spirit. [17] Mass is offered four times weekly and students have access to the Blessed Sacrament.

I would like you to point out exactly what is wrong with these sentences which you insist on removing from Trinity Western University's page. Please tell me what is here that is not supported by the link?--Grayhat551 (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest that you drop the attitude?
http://www.redeemerpacific.net/courses doesn't say anything about "liberal arts curriculum in taught in the Catholic spirit" or even that it's on the TWU campus. It doesn't even mention the school's name. It is simply a list of nine courses. It's a WP:PRIMARY source and so it's all-round bad. --Walter Görlitz (talk)
So first and foremost, the reference doesn't support the statements. If you would spend just a few minutes reading the links I have provided you, you might actually understand what it is I am saying to you.
And once again you have completely missed the entire point of this exercise. Please read Help:Edit summary and stop editing until you have.
And I totally forgot WP:UNDUE. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Couldn't agree more

Haha so I could see and I agree as well. That sentence should be reworded to indicate his move from Feyenoord and then to Man U because even before I clicked undo I kept reading the current sentence and it just seems confusing. Anyway I will reword it and if I see him come back with more good faith bad edits I will undo them. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012 follow up

Ah! but if you had looked on the talk page of the editor who's edit I undid all would have been revealed. As it was a multi-page undo for a multi page edit, there was little point going into detail on every page where the undo was done. -- PBS (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You wrote on my talk page "Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia." So do you know of all my contributions to Wikipedia good bad and indifferent. If not why are you thanking me for all my contributions to Wikipedia and not for this specific one which you saw? In the next sentence you say "I noticed your recent edit to List of UEFA Cup Winners' Cup winners does not have an edit summary" Yet the edit did have an edit summary it was "green|Undid revision 511282897 by Mentoz86 (talk)}}". Then you wrote "Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history." But as shown one was provided! Then you write "Thanks!" thanks for what and why an explanation mark?
Your comment shows you are confused about the details, I did not add back a template I remove one. I have given you an explanation where a detailed comment was placed, and why I did not expand on the auto-generated comment in the edit history. So while you can have opinions on whether the undo comment was or was not adequate, as the comment that was supplied is an automated one generated when an undo is performed, perhaps you should take you stick and beat the programmer(s) who is/are responsible for generating it. If you consider this an issue that is so important to you that you want to have the last word, by all means respond to these two paragraphs, because I will not continue the conversation as I think it is a waste of time for both of us. -- PBS (talk) 07:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Flags and Same-sex marriage legislation around the world

Could you give your opinion here? 70.253.91.210 (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Image for DJ Maj

You realize that I emailed in the permission from his production team, right? They really wanted the previous photo to be removed since it is a very different image than this one. They worked hard with me to figure out what we need to for using another photo from their publicity (no words, watermarks, etc). I don't see anywhere in OTRS that the photo shouldn't be used until after OTRS team verifies what I already have verified (especially since it often takes 1 month). It's not like I'm someone new here who doesn't understand images like we commonly see. In any case, I appreciate all that you do to watch articles that aren't watched my many others but I think you did the wrong thing in this case. Royalbroil 04:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I have asked User:Cirt since they have OTRS permission. Royalbroil 11:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Flags in infoboxes for National teams

It says in the link you share on my page (rules about flag in infoboxes), that exceptions would be military battle infoboxes templates and infoboxes that include international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games.

So my question is, why doesn't it make sense to add a flag to a national team?! It is a team representing a nation in international sporting events, and it certainly adds more clarity. Also other sports have the flag present on the page, as well as several other national teams, not only for football, but for several other sports as well. From how I understand the rules, international sporting events, such as FIFA World Cup and the Olympics are exceptions to this rule, so why did you go and remove all the flags I added to the national teams? --subzzee (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Competitions are fine, but national teams are not. Please see the talk page for the template: Template talk:Infobox national football team#Flags. If it was a good idea it would have already been done. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, it is already being done, if you are going to remove the flag icon from every sporting national team on Wikipedia you will be sitting here all day. there are still several more out there, have fun on your quest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subzzee (talk • contribs) 06:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to but in here (your talk page is still on my watchlist for some reason) but I believe we could get a bot to deal with that and if not we will just gradually get through it. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
If I see it happening on the national team articles I watch, I'll be sure to undo it and remind those editors of the various guidelines. However, we know that Subzzee won't be adding them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Touchdown! Thanks for the cleanup. Jim1138 (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Eye on It

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup squads

Actually, the official FIFA document that the entire article is based on lists Jong Tae-se as a defender. We may know with hindsight that this was wrong, but I was nevertheless right that my edit was supported by the source. – PeeJay 22:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Thank you for your messages. Could you please give a reference that says one MUST provide an edit summery before making a change? It seems like most people do not use edit summery and I suppose that it would be difficult to warn every single one of them. --Miunouta (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Help:Edit summary: Edit summaries are a communal consensus. They are Wikipedia norms and practices. It is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement or clarify other Wikipedia practices and policies. Please defer to the relevant policy or guideline in case of inconsistency between that page and this one.
I trust that you are not arguing that because many people do not give edit summaries that makes it OK for you not provide one. It would not be difficult to warn everyone. There is a bot that warned you for not signing your comment here. I trust that if consensus were high enough, a similar bot could be commissioned to warn those who do not provide a meaningful edit summary.
It seems you would rather wikilawyer than be a cooperative editor. That's fine too. We won't have to deal with that behaviour if it persists for much longer. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but I would consider "we won't have to deal with that behaviour if it persists for much longer" as a verbal threat. I did not come here to argue anything. For your information, I am new to this and there is a learning process apparently. --Miunouta (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not a threat at all, it is merely an observation. Those who cooperate and follow the common practises seem to stick around longer than those who insist on doing things their own way. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Arsene Wenger

Hi there I noticed that you undid the change I made to Arsène Wenger because Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain "started at Southampton". In case that you don't know, Theo Walcott started at Southampton as well. If you removed AOC which was added by me, then why would you not remove Theo Walcott at the same time?--Miunouta (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I did, because it's true. I can remove Walcott as well, but he wasn't in contention. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the fact that AOC "started at Southampton", however, I'm afraid that your explanation doesn't make much sense to me. Please be more consistent when you edit next time. If you want remove AOC for that reason, then please remove Theo Walcott as well. And hopefully you did not remove AOC because the change was made by me. Thank you very much.--Miunouta (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I simply undid your change as it did not fit into the provided description. I didn't fact-check the entire paragraph (or article for that matter). I'm sorry if I don't measure up to your standards. Feel free to adjust the article to remove other inaccuracies as I removed yours. It's better though, not to add more just because one exists. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok I'll do it. Thanks. --Miunouta (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm very confused I have to say. I really do not understand why you undid the change I made again? So you are saying that Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain cannot be included because he "started at Southampton" but Theo Walcott should stay there even though he started at Southampton as well? Please give me a clear explanation on this. Thank you.--Miunouta (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Several English players have started their careers at Arsenal under Wenger, including Cole, David Bentley, Steve Sidwell, Jermaine Pennant and Matthew Upson."
  • Bentley's first senior club was Arsenal.
  • Sidwell's first senior club was Arsenal.
  • Pennant's first senior club was not Arsenal.
  • Upson's first senior club was not Arsenal.
Onto the next phrase: "Young English talent such as Theo Walcott, Kieran Gibbs and Jack Wilshere are still building careers at the club."
  • Walcott's second (and current) club was Arsenal and since he's 23 until March 16, would qualify to play for England at the Olympics and so is considered young.
  • Gibbs and Wilshere are on loan and should probably be removed.
So changing the article isn't particularly useful.
However the real key comes with the included references:
  • Simons, Raoul (January 23, 2006). "Walcott deal can't hide Wenger's foreign fancy". Evening Standard. London. p. 63.
  • Campbell, Jeremy (August 8, 2010). "Arsène Wenger: Kieran Gibbs's fitness is good for Arsenal and England". The Guardian. London. Retrieved July 29, 2012.
What do they say? Who do they list? We can't just add what we want, we have to support our statements with verifiable and reliable sources. And when one inserts their own opinions into a referenced section, one has to be careful not to change the meaning against those references. Adding new references is a different matter. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Thank you for your detailed explanation. I appreciate it. I do understand that a valid source is needed when an addition is made. However, it still doesn't explain very well why AOC has been removed for the reason that he "started at Southampton". Also, I found an article that might support the addition of AOC. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2193683/Arsene-Wenger-hails-new-generation-young-British-players.html If you still have problem with me listing AOC in the Arsene Wenger article, please find a verified Arsenal expert to prove that I am wrong. Thank you.--Miunouta (talk) 06:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

How about this. They're not the same. That was my original estimation.
I don't actually like the second phrase and when I brought it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Questions for a new editor, that's what the only editor who responded said. Perhaps you should raise your concerns there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have read your comment about "[me] mucking about with" the Wenger article. For your information, I do know what I am doing. I'm putting my precious time into this article just to make it better and didn't expect it to be seen as "mucking about". My suggestion to some editor is that one should think twice before reverting a change that someone else has made with effort. Vandalism is a totally different case though.--Miunouta (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you also think too highly of yourself and my advice to you is that you read twice before adding material to a location where it makes no sense. Vandalism is a totally different case and you might want to go back to the footy project talk page to see how other perceive your assessment of this situation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

MLS Stadiums

Can you explain what you mean by "unnecessary and distracting use of colour"? If anything, it needs to be something which engages readers, captures their attention and want to know something more about the MLS and its history. Bland is what it is now when you reverted it back to its original page. I'm sure there a probably market studies/reports on what captures attention.

To the rest of the world, football(soccer) may be number one sport, but it's "only" the 7th rated sport here in the US behind the NFL, Major League Baseball(MLB), NBA, NCAA Football, NCAA Basketball, and the NHL! Its TV viewership barely registers on television screens. Newspapers are barely covering it outside of the markets which host a team.

I wanted to take a few columns out of the table but, out of respect for the person who created it, I left them in. So, if you feel that the use of color takes away from someone wanting to satisfy their thirst for knowlege, then so be it.


68.50.13.209 (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You have two colours for three sections. That's confusing. Why does it need colour at all? Why not a single table? It presents the information better. There is no need to engage the reader. Their presence on the page is all the engagement that we need. This section is previous stadiums. Why do we need to capture their attention and distract them from the current table? Bland is good for them all so as to not draw attention from the primary material.
If you're suggesting that by adding distracting colour to a list stadiums that are no longer used in MLS soccer is somehow going to raise the awareness of the sport in North America, you'll have to explain how that is going to work, because you've lost me.
The addition of colour does not increase the informative nature of the table and that's the goal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlits

Is this you? Or is this an impersonation attempt? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Not me, no. The family name is not a German one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Having read the editor's additions it appears that this is a football fan who has had to deal with Kevin McE and me before. Possibly 71.139.164.148. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Imitation, as they say, is the sincerest form of flattery: you have an admirer Walter! Given that he/she posted to my talk page exactly what I put on the page of that IP user, it is almost certain. Kevin McE (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

champions league 2012-13

Hi, some guy put a protection template for the article until october. most of the stats are outdated already. we need to change it. can u remove the preotection template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.244.230 (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

We got a problem here

Hey, if you hadn't noticed. The Vancouver MLS category was merged before the other category discussions regarding the Whitecaps were settled. Is there anyway that can be fixed, because were running into a bit of a problem regarding this. – Michael (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Adam Young

Hey Walter, Adam Young, an article that you have been involved in editing, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/FC Bayern Munich/archive1

I nominated Bayern Munich article for peer review. You might want to look at it. Kingjeff (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Watir article

Hi, I am not sure if this is a good way to contact you.

You wrote this comment: "Facebook may not be the best reference."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watir&diff=517210219&oldid=517209187

It is an article from Facebook Engineering blog, I thought it was credible enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.11.127 (talk) 10:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

--Zeljko.filipin (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:SELFSOURCE. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I see. As far as I understood it, the article talks about user generated content at Facebook. My reference was to the official Facebook Engineering blog. I think it has more credibility than a random post at Facebook. --Zeljko.filipin (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah. Yeah. That's got credibility. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Religion in Canada

That article has used yyyy-mm-dd for accessdates pretty consistently since they were introduced 2009-MAR-21. The MOS specifically allows ymd for accessdates. Abbreviating the publication dates is also specifically allowed. I think that full month names are important in the body, but just take up space in the ref section, but if you object to that, I have no objection to restoring the full month names, as that is how they were originally entered. There was no consistency in publication dates, all 3 formats were being used until today, and YMD is not an option for publication dates (acc to the MOS). --JimWae (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverts

Can you please read Cougar#Naming and etymology, and then compare this article with jaguar? Lguipontes (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you read no one cares since it's not really relevant to anything in this article about a football tournament and not about all the mundane minutia related to the selection of the mascot. The original "the jaguar, one of the biggest felines of the American continent alongside puma, known in Brazil as suçuarana or onça-parda" is sufficient and adding "surpassing the cougar or puma, that is" adds undue weight to this parenthetical phrase.
This discussion should be happening on the article's talk page, not here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
OK. I re-wrote the entire section and remove the trivial information about what the items were. Again, the article is about the tournament, not the distractions of selecting a mascot. I just checked and the French and German articles don't even mention the mascot. Just goes to show you how tangential the subject actually is. And while the Portuguese article mentions the voting process, it doesn't go into the intricate detail that you were forcing onto the failed selections. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Vancouver Whitecaps FC

Apologies if you were offended by my question regarding your undo of my removal of the playoff comment from the colours and badge section at Vancouver Whitecaps FC. Not sure how in the world you stretched the comment to even remotely coming close to WP:NPA though. You may want to read it through again, especially considering some of your edit comments, such as the "If you would actually be a good editor..." comment you left after this edit. Cheers. – Nurmsook! talk... 23:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor. First line in the policy. As you pointed-out, my earlier edit did make a comment on that editor. Unfortunately, my entire statement wasn't recorded. I intended to state that checking history would show the change, but the other other editor has taken a position against me on several occasions. My comment follows a comment made to me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This one's a keeper, Walter

"Sources don't confirm notability. Notability does." [18]

Well, notable articles are notable - I won't argue with logic like that. Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I hate the space provided in a summary. What I meant, and what the guideline states, is that notability is independent of the sources provided in any article. So if there aren't good sources, tag the article with {{refimprove}}. There are additional sources. Reviews and write-ups that support both albums. Will provide at least one more source. However, don't assume that a poorly written and poorly sourced article is the same as having a non-notable subject in that article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I understand, but better sources don't seem to be available. If you think you can find them, though, I'll wait a bit before submitting the articles to AfD. (Still, it is a funny edit summary.) Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I've written funnier, but thanks for assuming good faith. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Repeating links

I think you should read it again, Walter. This is all it says, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." None of what you said is listed. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Generally is a broad statement. In common use, it's usually once per section. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
I think it says "generally" because of the exceptions that follow. I thought you were a stickler for following MOS, and not following "common use." And why put a link to MOS if what you say isn't according to it? --Musdan77 (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
It says generally because of the lack of agreement on how many links per article are sufficient. See the archives in the talk pages.--Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The wording used to be "where the later occurrence is a long way from the first". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

BarlowGirl changes

Hi Walter!

My name is Paul & I'm the guy who made the changes to the BarlowGirl page you corrected last night.

I am quite aware of the need for accurate information here on Wikipedia as many people use it as a source of reference information. I therefore made the additions with this in mind. The information I compiled and added were based of actual transcripts of not only their final appearance which I have recorded and listened to repeatedly, but also made notes on purely for this purpose. I am a big fan of BarlowGirl and I, more than anyone, am the first to debunk any false stories, myths, or any other source of incorrect information.

The information on the fact of the track "Home For Christmas" where it is the only song their guitarist, Rebecca sings lead vocals is completely relevant, because as you would be aware of, she has a fear of not only of performing on stage, but being the "centre of attention" in a public situation (this was admitted by her sister Lauren on the bonus DVD included in the album "How Can We Be Silent" Premier Edition). As you would also be aware, Alyssa & Lauren were the only 2 who shared lead vocals on any given song, so the fact that Rebecca would even undertake lead vocals on any track is definitely newsworthy!

As for the addition of Beka Hardt's entry. As I explained, the girls themselves would be the first to admit that she has been the unsung "hero" of the band, sacrificing not only effort & time to the band, but also her dedication to her friend's general upkeep, with little or no recognition at all! (I know what that feels like!). There are other points I could also illustrate here, but I will spare you them for the sake of peace.

While I am not sure who you are, or by what authority you have to make these changes (whether you are even a part of Wikipedia), I think you should at lease exercise some sort of restraint in your attitude towards other's entries and at the very least, do additional research into the topics you so freely edit. As pointed out in the introduction to Wikipedia, it is not perfect and mistakes can happen, but to allow a single person to govern and edit it as their own will is not good! I believe that everyone has some source of correct information which they spend hours researching, compiling & entering for the benefit of others, but to have 1 single person come over and change everything to their "liking" is not only unfair, but discouraging to others future entries; it also creates ill will and eventually savage attacks, which as you know, is not the point of this website! (Leave that crap to Facebook * other "social" networks!)

While you, like the rest of us are more than entitled to your opinions, I would ask you to first stop & think before you change another person's entry, & undertake additional research before you hit your "delete" key. You might think you know everything here on Wikipedia, but please don't discount the fact that someone else might know more than you!

I am not here to pick a fight with you, or anyone else, but just because something is not relevant to you, doesn’t mean that it isn’t relevant to others; that is purely a matter of opinion!!

God bless & take care!

Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulthomasocall (talk • contribs) 23:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

After leaving a welcome message for you, I responded with this. Sorry you feel like I ripped your additions apart, but they needed to be. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
One thing further. You seem to be under the impression my edits were personal or somehow about the subject (BarlowGirl). They were not. They were about Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Flyleaf New horizon edit

My bad for not describing my edit, the review i removed was a user review from what i gathered. Going from previous experience, i assumed user reviews didn't get counted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.74.127 (talk) 05:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Marco Guzman, Jr

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000 I would appreciate if you could weight with your experiences with Marco Guzman, Jr if possible. Thank you and regards.-- PanirajaUpgraded! Tag me! 12:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing to offer as the investigation is not about Marco Guzman. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop deleting entries...

Once again the same old thing. Grande Rock has passed all the notability test by the Admins and they have given the OK. On all rock/metal albums there's a Grande Rock rating below so stop doing that. I'll have to report you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AORmaniac13 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I would love to have that happen since the source is pretty bad and I'd like to make my case. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It happened once. They said it's OK. If you have problem with that then just do it again. What's your problem after all? Who are yo to say that the source is pretty bad?(Hard Rocker 13 15:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AORmaniac13 (talk • contribs)

Who are "they" and where did "they" say this? In short, my problem is that the source is pretty bad and I'd like to make my case to "them". With that stated, what's your problem? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"They" are the Admins. That happened a year ago. And you come now after a year to say what? What's wrong with you? Don't you have anything else to do than deleting posts others are placing? The source is great & it's been around since you didn't know what Internet is. So take it easy and relax. What do you think you are? A judge of e-sources?!(Hard Rocker 13 15:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AORmaniac13 (talk • contribs)

Where is this discussion? Because the community cares about sources, admins have no more rights to state that a source is good or bad than other editors. With that said, I'm an editor and my opinion is that source is pretty bad and I would like to present my case to this location where this supposed discussion took place. Also, you're going to get yourself blocked for signing your posts as someone other than who you are. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You do have a problem right? This is my signature. The discussion that took place is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AORmaniac13#Your_recent_edits. Who are you to say what's bad or good? Do you even know about music? Don't you have anything else to deal with? I've never had a problem before you appear. Are you a problem seeker? Do you have any major problems or what? Hard Rocker 13 15:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AORmaniac13 (talk • contribs)

No sir, you have the problems.
  1. SineBot says your signature isn't being applied. When you sign as Hard Rocker 13 and your user name is AORmaniac13, you're not signing your name. Simply add ~~~~ at the end of your posts and you'll be signing. It's been added to your talk page as well. I'm not sure why you haven't figured that out yet. The fact that it has been your "signature for almost a year now" doesn't mean you can not sign with your current name. And again, I don't care, SineBot does.
  2. Thanks for pointing me to the discussion.
    1. One user is not plural.
    2. Neither User:Mac Dreamstate nor User:Backtable is an admin.
    3. Taking your source to the correct place to be discussed: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Grande Rock.
  3. The fact that you have added that pretty bad source with impunity before does not mean that you will continue to do so. When you do it enough times, your actions get noticed and someone will complain. In this case, that's me. And I appeared 2004-10-22T02:27:04. You appeared 2012-01-17T16:41:45. Based on that, you were having problems for a solid seven years before your first edit.
  4. Do you have anything else to deal with? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Just take it easy. I understand that you have nothing better to do in your life but talking trash won't do you any good.I'm not a regular user so I may not do some things quite well - signatures etc. Too buzz over nothing. Hard Rocker 13 16:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AORmaniac13 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Lovely ad hominem attack. When you actually have something useful to say, feel free to discuss. Until then, please stay civil. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I plan on removing any further personal attacks you leave for me here. I will also start tagging your page. At some point, I will get an admin to look into your behaviour as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist request

Could you by any chance keep Nailed. Dead. Risen. on your watchlist? The genre gets screwed with A LOT. 69.233.1.44 (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Done. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The Weight of an Empty Room

Hi, I just wanted to say thank you for adding the album reviews from Exclaim! and Punknews.org to this page. I noticed the AfD recently closed and didn't remember putting them in the article myself, so thanks again for beating me to it! Cheers,  Gongshow Talk 05:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I harbour no ill will toward the article. Once I realized I had erred, it was easy to improve the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

A little help for a newbie?

On the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leeenux Linux I commented that following the deletion of Leeenux Linux that RipLinux should also be marked for deletion. To this you replied: Done. In the future, feel free to nominate them yourself directly. Unfortunatly, being new to the Wikipedia website I know not of how to perform such a function for myself; How would one go about requesting the deletion of a non-notable page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilKeyboardCat (talk • contribs) 05:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

See {{AfD in 3 steps}}. Alternately, you could install a tool like Wikipedia:Twinkle, which installs a new menu titled TW on every Wikipedia page you navigate to when you're signed-in. Among other tools, a XfD menu exists that throws-up a JavaScript dialog that lets you select what type item it is to delete and which category it fits into. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Zwarte Piet

Sorry about not adding the date to {{clarification needed}} in the article Zwarte Piet. I tend to rely on the bots to fix this kind of thing. Do you know of a tool that would insert the dates for me? Qwertyus (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. A bot will come and do it, but it's not difficult to add it yourself. I was watching the page and made the changes. It really wasn't a problem. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Policy Confusion

Sorry about getting back to this so late. I've been super busy with real life. I noticed that you undid my removal of unreferenced content in Seattle Sounders FC which is currently listed as a featured article. Your edit summary stated this: We don't remove material that can be referenced, we cite or tag it. The policy I'm familiar with, WP:V, clearly states the following: Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Editors are not required to add citations or tag unreferenced content. Where it not a featured article, I would have probably done that, but featured articles are necessarily held to a higher standard. Hence the removal. I appreciate you adding the correct citation when you reverted my removal, and more importantly your efforts to ensure that the quality level in featured articles remains high. --SkotyWATC 00:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

May is the key word. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Just a heads up: Talk:Test-driven development#OTRS permission for pathfindersolns.com. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Re Direct response

This discussion began here with my writing:

This series of edits is not appropriate. "Yes we can get back on topic, and we can easily stay on the topic as long as you refrain from telling editors what they haven't read and referring to their opinions as 'making no sense'." You are telling me how to act, which is what you're accusing me of. I simply stated what I saw: that the editors responded to the last thing they read without the context of the entire discussion and missed the full discussion. Without telling you what to do, I would suggest that we either drop it completely or escalate it. The choice is yours. I am doing this here so as to allow for an on-topic discussion on the article's talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Your comments in the discussion were inappropriate, and you made such comments multiple times. I've made my points and can drop it if you will drop your inappropriate comments in the discussion. The choice is yours. One point on which we agree: I don't plan to make additional comments about your behavior on the article's talk page; I'll take them to the appropriate administrator page if there is a need. Cresix (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is that my comments were inappropriate. My opinion is those who commented were misinformed and I directed them to the full discussion. Feel free to take it to the appropriate panel because your behaviour is the problem now, not mine. ---Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
My opinion is that your comments were insulting (telling editors what they have not read as if editors don't know what they have read) and attacks (describing editors' opinions in a discussion where all opinions are welcome as "making no sense"). And, oh, you don't need to tell me to "feel free to take it to the appropriate panel"; that's a foregone conclusions if you continue such comments in the discussion. Cresix (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
What I was responding to was the Wikipedia equivalent of someone walking into an ongoing discussion, and responding without knowing what had gone on before. It's tiresome and should never be done. If you don't have time to determine what has and has not already been said, you should not speak. Period.
What I was responding to was the Wikipedia equivalent of someone responding to the chapter title of a book without reading the contents of the chapter.
What I was responding to was lazy participation on the part of editors. While I assumed good faith in their edits and I assumed that they understood the subject, it was clear to me that they hadn't read the full discussion. I still hold that position.
Your behaviour of repeatedly calling me out and tell me not to tell others what to do was not only hypocritical, it was a distraction from the discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense. You assume what others have read or not read (equivalent of acting as if you can read their minds), and then make snide remarks about it. This is the end of this discussion. Please don't message me again about this matter unless I escalate it. And should you be tempted to ignore that request, consider it an official demand, and take a look at WP:HUSH. Cresix (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you don't see things the same way I do. You will likely not be around Wikipedia for long with your bad attitude are rudeness. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
A talkback template is not a warning. It's the appropriate way to communicate. As the section you pointed to states: "user talk pages are to facilitate communication". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Muniesa's number

Marc Muniesa is recovering from a knee surgery. He was not enrolled in La Liga, as can be seen on the official website (http://www.lfp.es/temporada/fichaclubplantillas.aspx?IDParam=5). This information that he is the number 26 is wrong because in the Spanish league clubs use the numbers 1-25 on the regular squad. Muniesa is first team player and can not use numbers above 25. What's more, the number 26 is used by the defender Sergi Gómez, yes this player's B team (http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/season=2013/clubs/club=50080/squad/index.html). Marcospace (talk) 30 November 2012 (UTC)

He's listed on the roster and that's the source. If he's out due to injury, you mark that next to the palyer's name. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Coverton

I just wanted to alert you on the subject of an ongoing discussion relating to Christian music.HotHat (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for your work at the UML page

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for all work over the years guarding the Unified Modeling Language page. -- Mdd (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Walter,

I noticed that over the years you responded over 100 time, guarding the UML page and responding to comments on the talk page. I admire your dedication and hope you will continue to do so. -- Mdd (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Apology

I apologize for the profane and any rudeness I may have shown yesterday.
XyphynX9 (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

We all get worked-up about things. Some of us let that come-out. I've done similar so it wasn't particularly unexpected, plus it's not like I don't hear that sort of language. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for drawing my attention to Real Earthquake's latest stunt. If any of the stuff that he is posting is worth having on those articles, obviously I wouldn't challenge it being added by you or anyone else in good standing, but I can't ignore his deciding that he is exempt from wiki rules. Kevin McE (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Re:Henry

Hey, sorry for taking forever to respond to your message on my talk page. I wanted to get some other things done first. Anyway I agree that newspapers can be used as I use them mainly as my sources for my Indian football pages but at the same time I know the evils of them. Henry is no exception as the Daily Mail came out today saying that the deal is not confirmed at all and that Henry may not actually go to Arsenal now. Who knows to be honest. For these types of transfers its best to just wait for one of the teams to confirm. Here is the Daily Mail article by the way... [19]. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I know. I jumped the gun and was going based on what I saw on the player article and then a Google search. No confirmed loan. My fault. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Its cool. We all make mistakes. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

MLS squad templates... non-notable players.

Oh and, as I am sure you have noticed, the MLS club articles are being updated a lot now that the MLS season is over and transactions are being done but it does worry me how their are Academy players being signed (like the ones at New York Red Bulls) and that there is no option to unlink the non-notable players on the current squad template. Now this is not to go against the squad template used in MLS articles as I actually think it is right for MLS articles due to MLS's rules like the HGP and Drafted players/Guest players but there really needs to be an option to unlink the non-notable players so they are not created pre-maturely. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is. Here's an example.
{{football squad player2 |no=36 |nat=CAN |pos=MF |name={{sortname|Bryce |Alderson|nolink=1}} |other=[[Home Grown Player|HGP]]}}
The players don't qualify as notable until they have played in a professional match or have been capped at a major tournament for their nation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that Red Bulls use a different template. It's trivial to switch though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Well I just tried it and it worked. We can probably change it back to the same format as the other Red Bulls players once he becomes notable. Cheers for that. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Merry Christmas :) — ΛΧΣ21 23:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

MLS Squad template

Why are MLS squads listed as one full list while every other league is split in half? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazwah234 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll avoid the logic problem and address the question: because a decision was made about a year ago to introduce the new and slightly more correct template to the MLS articles. There was some disagreement about whether they should be rolled-out to the EUFA-sanctioned league team articles and the project stalled.
Not all EUFA-sanctioned league team articles do use the old and slightly more incorrect templates. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Creation of article for Derek Minor, formerly known as Pro

I don't know if you are interested or not, but I'm creating an article on Derek Minor, formerly known as PRo. If you want to contribute, the subpages are User:3family6/Derek Minor and User:3family6/Derek Minor discography.--¿3family6 contribs 17:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Skillet article undo

Although you may be correct about the intro, there are sections in the "Next Album" section that need to be referenced. You're incorrect to say they're cited when there clearly are sections where they're not. Unless I don't understand something, I think the tag I put in the "Next Album" section is valid. If I don't get a response in a week, I'll put it back, but let me know what you think. Srsrox (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternative is that I'll have to delete the sentences that are not referenced because they could be gossip. I'd rather tag the section like I did before.Srsrox (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
You're not familiar with the tagging templates that you're throwing around. I didn't indicate that there are already citation needed tags there. So feel free to tag the one sentence that's left and welcome to Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Since you still don't get it as can be seen from this edit please see Template:Citation needed
"This template is intended for specific passages that need citation. For entire articles or sections that contain significant material lacking sources (rather than just specific short passages), there are other, more appropriate templates, such as {{Unreferenced}} or {{Refimprove}}."
In other words, we don't add a section template if there are statements that are already tagged. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks but I'm not new. I just felt the section needed extra attention because it was largely unsourced. If you knew this though, why didn't you tag it with the proper tag instead of just stating I'm wrong? There is nothing I saw in the article that states it's incorrect to tag a section that needs citation if there is a need. I can't seem to find a lot of those claims. Srsrox (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The "proper tag" (what a kind and euphemistic way of saying that I'm wrong and you're not, which is clearly the case here) was there. You added the wrong tag. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know!

I do appreciate you help! I just want to be sure you know that! I don't want you to think I'm trying to fight you or anything. Thanks for the pointers so far! Srsrox (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

User:AFCShandong

Hi there WALTER, AL here,

just a quick note because i see you warned this user several times, why he is not blocked yet boggles the mind. AFTER your warnings and several others by other users he has continued, for example removing the entire PERSONAL section in Rubén Suárez Estrada without one word.

I have "strenghtened" the article now, that section was not sourced, now it is. Let's see how this person fares. Attentively, merry Christmas from Portugal --AL (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Christmas wishes. I hope your Christmas is both peaceful, joyful and full of good football!
I suspect that the editor is not comfortable in English and so we may have to make allowances until editing norms can be effectively communicated. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Walter Görlitz I am Kai Lau (talk) and I'm one of the people who has complained about User:AFCShandong edits several times on his/hers talk page. Despite constantly asking for him/her to revert several of his/hers edits he/she has never bothered and I as well as several others have had to do it, however my biggest complaint with this person is their edits on Guizhou Renhe F.C. where they've deleted the entire section of name history, badge history and kit history without one word. I've checked with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs page and these sections are perfectly valid. I've reverted his/her deletions several times yet he/she constantly deletes my edits and I've personally had it with this person, I believe this person should be blocked and I'm asking you what are the nessary steps that I need to do this. Yours Sincerely --Kai Lau (talk) 01:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Happy children want you to be happy too!

Happy children join me in extending the best possible Season's Greetings to you and your loved ones at this time of year, and if you don't celebrate the usual holidays (Diwali, Xmas, Hanukkah, Eid, Kwanzaa, etc....), then we will still wish you a Happy Festivus. All the best: HarryZilber (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

...

Colossians 1:15-16


Merry Christmas!
History2007 (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there

Hello. I understand you are an experienced user. Could you kindly help me with a detail I could not solve myself? It is about the Infobox of the Elazığ province article. The official website address has been written wrongly. The correct one should be: www.elazig.gov.tr. Somehow it is stuck wrongly. Thanks in advance for your precious time and Frohe Weihnachten. --E4024 (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem stems from an incorrect template. Ask on the discussion page of Template:Infobox Province TR. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks; another Wikifriend solved the issue. Best wishes. --E4024 (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Allmusic sidebar

Hi. I had this article on my watchlist and noticed this change of yours. I just got out of a discussion with another genre editor who uses Allmusic's sidebar as a source, trying to convince him to use of better sources if available. You said in your edit summary that Allmusic's genre "cloud" isnt reliable (as previously noted at WP:ALBUMS and RSN discussions), so could this be mentioned in a guideline somewhere? Where we could refer editors that use it? Neither WP:GW nor WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES say anything about it, although the former looks like an editor's essay. Dan56 (talk) 04:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It should be mentioned. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sebastián Alfaro 16

Hello, sorry to say the appropriate words and edit Vancouver Whitecaps FC in MLS Cup Playoffs section will change to rename Qualified to Knockout round, that the season has ended and the club put a stage finishing in playoffs, so I apologize and not do it again, Greetings!!. Sebastián Alfaro 16 (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Zwarte Piet pt. II

Hi, it was I who overzealously italicized the article title and all the Zwarte Piet and Sinterklaas mentions in the article, saw that you reverted the title and was preparing to fire off some MoS ITALICS quotes when I saw the tiny line at MOS:Ety that says: Foreign terms: A proper name is usually not italicized when it is used ...

So thanks for watching, my bad, I have just unitalicized most of the article, just leaving the names of the candies and the one or two sinterklaas derived words in italics. Happy New Year as we wiki our way into 2013! CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I read it as well, since I wasn't 100% sure, but thought I'd let it ride for a while to avoid an edit war. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Walter_Görlitz/Archived_Talk_to_2012-12&oldid=1145839978"