User talk:Walter Görlitz/Archived Talk to 2016-12

Juno synthesizer

I noticed you linked Juno synthesizer to Roland Juno-106 in Something Like This. The same term (Juno synthesizer) appears in Passing Through (Randy Travis album) and Untamed (Cam album). I don't know if they should link to Roland Juno-60, Roland Juno-106, or Roland Juno-G. If you would like to link these also, please go ahead.Mb66w (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Australian charts

Remember the request I made last week regarding the Australian charts? Any chance you or someone else could help me? Thanks. Unreal7 (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall, but Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums‎ might be a good place to discuss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

TFC Player of the Year template

Hi there again, It seems the TFC Player of the Year article will most likely be deleted and merged into the main TFC article. Shouldn't the template be deleted as well? "GiantSnowman" says to follow the procedure at WP:TFD. I would do it myself, but not sure if the same person who nominated the actual article must nominate the template. Thanks again. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If the article is deleted, or redirected, the template should as well. I commented on that in the AfD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I see your comment stating that, however, user "GiantSnowman" said that the proper action to take the templates to deletion is at WP:TFD. Anyway, we'll see what happens. Once the article is deleted, we'll see if the template gets deleted as well. If not further action can be taken in that case. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

So now with the discussion closed on a consensus to merge, and since the merge has been done, what will be done with the article/template now? Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Long block

Hello, Walter. I saw your message here. The block did take into account the extensive amount of attempted vandalism that had been blocked by edit filters over the last few months, as well as the rather smaller amount of vandalism that got through and appears in the editing history. My view is that if a school IP address is the source of nothing or almost nothing other than vandalism over many years (in this case more than six years) then there is no good reason to keep blocking for short times, knowing full well that the result will simply be that the vandalism will keep starting up again each time the blocks expire, and a long block makes more sense. Nevertheless, I see that you don't agree, and on the principle that actions should follow consensus, rather than just the personal opinion of the person performing the action, I have reduced the block length to two years. I have also taken the unusual step of removing your talk page post, as it no longer applies, and it seems to me this is one of the rare occasions when removing another editor's post is reasonable, but if for any reason you think it should stay there then please restore it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2016

Pep Guardiola

I put the duplicate information in the lower subsection because that is the better lead–in than just saying he wants to manage in England. Kingjeff (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

It's bad writing. I have tried to fix it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

helige/heilige

Walter, I did a translation of helige; it said "holy"; then did it for heilige; it said "saint". So, who should I believe: Google or an IP with only one edit? But, I think with a name like Görlitz, I can believe you (if that is your real name). :) --Musdan77 (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Musdan77: Believe the lede as it has used heilige. Believe sources that indicate that heilige is the word for holy. Believe the German-language article: de:Stille Nacht, heilige Nacht. Words do not have a one-to-one correlation. I have the article on my watchlist and did a facepalm when I realized that it had gone unchecked for so long. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Translaton from German. I can not find the right words. Ballhunter?

Hello

I am writing a short section about the scouting at RB Leipzig, and in an interview in 2015 did head of youth department Frieder Schrof explain what type of players that the club was looking for, he said:

"Wir sind in allen Scoutingbereichen schon sehr gut aufgestellt. Spieler, die zu uns kommen, müssen unserer Philosophie entsprechen: Balljäger, gedanklich schnell, sprintstark – je älter sie sind, desto mehr müssen die Talente diese Anforderungen bereits verinnerlicht haben."

See the words marked in bold. I really can not find the right words in English. Ballhunter? Quick thinker? Strong sprinter? It sounds silly... I am not familiar enough with this terminology in English. Do you have any suggestions?

Thank you in advance!

Best reards

/EriFr (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@EriFr: The terms are not common and I would have to interpret them from context.

• Balljäger = the player is a ball-hunter or goal scorer. Someone who is always looking for the ball. I'm assuming this is a striker or some other forward.
• Gedanklich schnell = quick thinker or mentally fast.
• Sprintstark = strong sprinter or fast sprinter or possibly agile and strong.

I would translate the sentence:

• "We are very well positioned in all areas of Scouting. Players who come to us have, must comply with our philosophy: be ball-hunters, be mentally and phsically fast - the older they are, the greater the need for them ot have internalized these talents."

But I'm not a professional translator and don't have an advanced level of German. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that is perfect, your translation is very helpful. Thank you very much! /EriFr (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I've ran into the same problem again. This time it is the words that describe the style of play teached at the RB Leipzig youth academy, but I don't want to bother you every time, so I posted my question on the Talk page of the German football task force. Kindest regards. /EriFr (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Test automation

Dear Walter,
Thank you for re-instating the hyphen that was missing in 'code-driven testing'. I too had the same idea as you, about removing the wikilink to a non-existing article, but I thought that another editor might want to create it, one day; so, I left it as it was. However, I agree with you that, in this case, it's probably better to have removed the redlink. Thanks once again, Walter.
With kind regards,
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 10:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

What's "Notable"?

Hi Walter! I don't know why you call Opensource.com "non-notable." If you're familiar with open source software development, that magazine is by RedHat. So I don't know what counts as "notable" to you. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psy~enwiki (talk • contribs) 16:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Psy~enwiki: Thanks for commenting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Page

Hi Walter,

I appreciate your attentiveness to detail and your work with Wikipedia. I understand that you deleted the page "Danny Wimmer" that was tagged for speedy deletion. On its talk page, after being checked for notability, it was noted that the page fell within the guidelines for Wikipedia and living persons. Would it be possible to reinstate the page or send me the information I had so that I may improve upon it? In the interest of full disclosure, I am a paid intern for Danny Wimmer Presents, represented by Danny Wimmer. That said, I can understand exactly what I did wrong. I should not have gone ahead and edited your page 'Rock on the Range' and rather should have suggested an edit on its talk page. In the future I will keep that in mind, as not to undermine your current work.

Any help is appreciated in reinstating, or retrieving the information put forth on that subject.

Cheers,

Spuderman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spuderman (talk • contribs) 21:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Spuderman: I don't have any pages. I monitor Rock on the Range because previous editors have added nonsense to it.

I did not delete the article you created on Wimmer. I nominated it for deletion. A admin reviewed whether it should or should not have been nominated. The admin could have decided I was wrong about stating it was not notable and deleted my nomination. The deleting admin agreed with my assessment. If I had not seen it because you did not link it to the festival article, it would have been reviewed by an editor, likely within a week of being created. I suspect the other editor would have seen what I saw.

There is a process for requesting undeletion of an article, but from what I remember, there was nothing there. A few sentences on the subject, links to a few mentions of Wimmer, but no feature interviews of Wimmer. You could go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion and make your request there, but you might want to check WP:N and the linked articles, such as Wikipedia:Notability (people). Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey Walter,

I appreciate the information. I think a better route for me to take is to really gather all of my information and enter it at once, including sources and all of that. It is unfortunate that the info presented is being seen as measly. If there are any other tips or bits of advise I am definitely interested in hearing it. I appreciate it,

(Spuderman (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC))

I don't think that entering it all at once will make any difference. I think that writing about notable subjects would be the best place to start. You can write about non-notable subjects all you want, but the articles will still be deleted. You're confusing lack of notability with a small article. There are many articles on notable subjects that are small. Volume won't help impress notability either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

NetHelpDesk

Thank you for your assistance. Much appreciated. I have made some edits to make it less of a "puff piece". I was using their website as the source of some tech.

How can I stop the page being deleted? Really harsh for a novice who is trying to learn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterMapistar (talk • contribs) 17:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @PeterMapistar: It's tagged for "lack of notability". If there's no third party sources to substantiate nobility, not much anyone can do. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@PeterMapistar: I have to agree with Mlpearc. There's a link at the top of that article that discusses notability. Follow it and see if there are sources that you can find to help support notability. I couldn't find any. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I've edited the page. Is that better? PeterMapistar (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Did you add significant coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject? That is what is needed to meet Wikipedia:Notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Policy discussion in progress

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of Fly Like an Eagle, a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 16:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For your efforts cleanup up links to Jesus Freak Hideout following that article's deletion. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I have about 600 left to do, but the list is getting shorter. Can hardly wait for the upcoming Cross Rhythms clean-up. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to help a bit by removing the dead links when I see them. I'm approved for AWB, but I'm using family computers since my own is being repaired, and don't want to install the software on their computers. As for CR, the articles already have some citations to significant coverage in reliable sources, so I'm thinking it will be hard for them to fail an AfD. New Release Today probably will go, though, since I'm not seeing much coverage in my g-hits searches. The wikilinks to that site are far fewer, though.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

U2fan01

Walter -- thanks for your efforts in maintaining the U2 page. I worked on the original efforts to bring the article to FA many years ago and was a little surprised that the new lead image U2fan01 wasn't reverted earlier. I think it's a better image but wanted to get your thoughts. Wikipedia brown (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I do think the MSG image a better representation of a band, but the other image is newer, and for current bands, "newer" is usually preferable. I don't see either image in the article. I'm willing to wait for a discussion to form though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Mate

Thanks for your continued work on Mate (beverage). I took an interest in mate many years ago when I saw it in a Middle Eastern grocery store. I asked the owner what a South American beverage was doing in a Lebanese grocery. He told me that a lot of Middle Easterners had fled to South America during WWII, and that they brought mate back with them when they returned home. I have a gourd and a supply of herb, but I don't drink it very often. It's an interesting cultural phenomenon to me, and I keep an eye on the article. It's good to know that I'm not the only one. You're usually far ahead of me in making edits. BTW, I see a mention of Mennonite in your background. My mother's distant ancestors were "plain people" who emigrated due to persecution of Anabaptists, settling in Central Pennsylvania. Keep up the good work! Lou Sander (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Mobile Apps Performance Testing

I have requested to Add Mobile Apps Perfromance Testing as a page in Wikipedia and then add the link to this page. I do not understand why you have deleted the linkedin link from external sources but I think we can place that and it is totally relevant.

Thanks, Devendra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dev123456789 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Did you see the reason why I blanked the page? It's in my edit summary. You copied the text from your own slideshare. It's not compatible with Wikipedia's copyright terms. It's also completely unreferenced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Another editor nominated it for speedy deletion for the same reason. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Could I interview you?

I've been thinking of writing a piece for The Signpost about Christian music on Wikipedia. Could I interview you at a future date and include that in the piece?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll let you know when I've got things a little more concrete.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Alexiulian

Since I explicitly mention you in the motion, I should let you know that I've filed a WP:CBAN motion at WP:AN#Motion for WP:CBAN against User:Alexiulian25 against this editor. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Photo Edits

Walter,

Thank you for the note about the edits I made on the Geoff Moore Wiki Page. Yes, I removed the photo intentionally. At the request of the artist. We intend to upload a more current photo soon. I'm in the process of obtaining licensing permissions for new photos. Existing photo is dated, and unprofessional in appearance. Thank you for your good intentions and all your good work on Wikipedia.

Geoff Moore Management Mfaccount (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Your removal of articles related to Earth Crisis

You've removed the contents of multiple articles related to Earth Crisis. According to WP:NALBUMS, it appears to be enough for an album to have been mentioned in a good source for Wikipedia to have an article on it. Salvation of Innocents has been reviewed by Ultimate Guitar and Blabbermouth.net, both of which appear to be independent and reliable, as they're used in many good and featured music articles on Wikipedia. --Rose (talk) 07:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I would have to look at the reviews. Quite often, they're user reviews and while the sources meet WP:RS, individual entries may not meet the requirements. All of the articles I redirected were unreferenced for more than four years. If they are notable, then feel free to restore the article and add the sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The altpress.com entry is not significant coverage. The blabbermouth.net doesn't meet RS because it does not have an author and the "review" is actually "Album Details Revealed". I stand by my decision. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't refer to that particular blabbermouth.net source. There were no links to the actual reviews by UG or blabbermouth in the article, but they do exist (1 2) and they're not user reviews. There's also a short review of the album on AllMusic but I don't know if it's user-generated as I don't think I've worked with AllMusic sources before. I would assume the other albums' pages your edits affected have reviews on these or other websites as well but I haven't checked yet. --Rose (talk) 14:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. The first link does have a reviewer's name. Mendez has done several review at ultimate-guitar.com. The AllMusic entry does not have a rating so it does not appear to be an official review, but as I wrote, if you would like to resurrect the article, feel free to. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

They Look Like People spoiler free wikipedia page until after grace period

Hi! We are the team behind They Look Like People, and again removed the wonderful synopsis that never the less gives away the entire plot. Even though the movie has been released, in the theaters, it has not come to digital yet and been released on DVD Even if it has, reviewers never give away plot elements without saying, "spoilers ahead!" because they fundamentally want people to enjoy the movie as much as they can. We realize wikipedia is supposed to be supply the world with a free source of transparent information, but it would be too bad if it had the unwanted effect of accidentally ruining what could have been a meaningful experience of watching the movie. From other movies I've seen on here, there exists about a 3 month grace period after the movie comes out on VoD and Digital, so that most of the audience of the movie will have seen it already. We are still sad that the movie could accidentally be given away, by someone just wanting to learn about the movie's history, but we understand the love the point of wikipedia accept that if that is what everyone wants to do. I ask, as the director, that we keep these three months safe from spoiling. Thank you very much! Perry and the TLLP team — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.226.176.131 (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia's Content disclaimer and the spoiler warning guideline that is accessible through the disclaimer, Wikipedia articles may include content that spoils the plot. It is expected that readers not read through an article on work in question if they do not want to know the plot.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no grace period for film spoilers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys removed again because of the following 1) In the same way that you would not, imagine, release spoilers for a TV show until it has been air, this should be removed until March 11th, because even though the film was "released" it was shown in a single theater in LA for 1 week. This means 99.99% of the world population has zero way to access it. As soon as it becomes an actual commodity on March 11th, a synopsis could be up.

2) The spoiler section states, "Articles on a work of fiction should primarily describe it from a real-world perspective, discussing its reception, impact and significance." Right now, the wikipedia page is 418 words of spoilers, 228 words of other. For the wikipedia page to be "primarily" about real world perspective, the synopsis should be cut down to below 228 words.

3) I'm not trying to be annoying. I strongly, strongly disagree with this policy, even as I love wikipedia. I know that I cannot win this fight overall, but I'm trying to do what I can to make sure everyone is happy and things are fair. - pb

• Well... the issue is that Wikipedia isn't censored and while plots should be condensed, sometimes plot synopses have to be long to cover the plot of a film. I don't really mind this either way - I can see Gorlitz's reasons for re-adding the plot, but I also don't see the harm in just letting things be a little vague for a while. What I've done as sort of a way to make a happy medium is that I added a few lines to the current version. It does generally cover what was removed but leaves the film's resolution a little more vague. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Mind completing that edit rationale on the New ABR album?

It kinda got cut off... dannymusiceditor ^{what'd I do now?} 15:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure. It should have read, "I don't want genre warriors (see WP:GWAR) to think that they can add genres based on any rationale. There should be style section added to the article and sources for any genres. If the album is metalcore, every source should mention it." I made one spelling error and edit summaries don't allow for bold so I used caps. The rollback dialog allows for more characters than the edit summary will save. The last sentence was directly against your claim that "No RSes will exist for it because they'd be stating the obvious fact that it's metalcore." If it's an obvious fact, they will obviously state that fact. The article should source the genres in a style section. I have added an empty one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians

I'd like to invite you to give your opinion on my new discussion on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians. Thanks! Teddy2Gloves^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Kingston Stockade Football Club

Hi - thanks for keeping an eye on the page. Sorry for adding "nickname" and then replacing it with "shortname". I figured "shortname" was the way to express that no on refers to the club as the longer name -- but if it's not, no problem.

Also, you flagged me for deleting the "notability" and "need citation" alerts -- how can I delete these permanently? I added the citations as asked, and the Talk page discussion says that a "keep" decision has been made in relation to the notability. Any advice appreciated, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpstyles (talk • contribs) 22:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Good questions. The notability and additional references tags should be removed either by the person who added them (me) or someone who has reviewed the article. It's your main article so you may be biased. Ask at for someone to review it on the talk page at WP:FOOTY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Interview questions

Okay, I'm working on that Signpost piece. Below are the interview questions. I can respond with more detailed questions if there's an area you want me to get deeper into.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You can see a draft of the article portion, onto which I will append the interview, here. Please feel free to give me feedback on it.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

What prompted you to become a Wikipedia editor?

What motivated you to become a member of WikiProject Christian music? What kind of Christian music-related articles do you like to work on?

Do you contribute to any other subject areas on Wikipedia?

In the approximately ten years that you've edited on Wikipedia, what are some key changes have you seen, both within the WikiProject or the larger encyclopedia, and how do you feel about them?

What would you say are your favorite contributions as an editor? [Your answer doesn’t have to be limited to the Christian music project]

Does your WikiProject collaborate with any other WikiProjects? What are some of the intersections of Christian music with other subject areas?

Has your project formed any special workgroups or task forces?

What are WikiProject Christian music's most pressing needs?

What would you say are some of the most pressing issues for Wikipedia as a whole?

How can a new contributor help the WikiProject today?

Any other final comments?

File:ScholasticNarnia.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ScholasticNarnia.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Give You My World

I will let you decide if two magazine reviews, one current and one former, are enough for notability, from Worship Leader and Cross Rhythms.The Cross Bearer (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Christine D'Clario

I will be able to prove her notability, as the delete crowd got it wrong.The Cross Bearer (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: Email

Hello, Walter. Did you ever get my email, or did I miss-spell the address? You can contact me through email as you did before. Thanks,--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Legenda Aurea

The user who created the page about a metal band was User talk:Nic.anfernee. The script led you to notify me because the page I created there was a redirect to Golden Legend. I would suggest that if the page gets deleted that the redirect be restored in its place. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Rayo OKC Kits

I came very close to reverting for the same reason. They are awful! Red Jay (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Signpost article

You can read the final version of the interview piece here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Link in infobox or text

Hi Walter,

you reverted my addition of a link to Extended play on the page Who We Are (EP). I guess the reason was, that there already is a link in the infobox. I didn't even see that one. Is there a guideline, if links should be in the text or in the infobox? In my opinion links are better recognized in the text, so I would put them there and not the infobox. Also there are multiple links to Flyleaf (Band), is there a special reason for it? SUmmo (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a common term along with studio album, etc. It's not about REPEATLINKs at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

MLS article

Sorry, I was thinking the Australian league had playoffs to decide the champions . Don't know what happened to the URL other than bad typing. Red Jay (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Scott Krippayne

Sorry to bother you, but you recently left a message on my talk page claiming I was trying to promote a "certain image" for a subject by saying he performs more than one genre. This was certainly not my intention, and there is abundant proof that the subject (Krippayne) does not belong to a single genre. I do not want to start a WP:EDITWAR, so I have kept your revert standing for now, but I strongly feel that keeping the single genre in the first sentence of the lead and infobox is wrong (it could even present violations of WP:NPOV). Squiddaddy (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand and agree. The problem is that "various" is not a genre. The parameter should list all genres, and they should be sourced, and CCM is definitely one of them. Also, we do not WP:OVERLINK nationalities. I debated whether I should fix the content, as I did after your first edit, or revert to make it clear what I was doing and why. As you can see, I landed on the second. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have looked for a source behind other genres Krippayne has performed, and this Billboard article seems to go into a few. It states he "has built a comfortable career on well-written, introspective pop tunes," and then explains (that the album described in the article) includes "demonstrates a sophisticated rock sensibility" and has "bluesy" musical textures. Do you feel this source supports adding at least one of these other genres to the infobox? If so, then would it be okay if I went ahead and did so, along with changing the lead so it does not specify one genre? Also, I understand what you mean about overlinking completely, and when I make the change I will make sure to keep "American" unlinked. Squiddaddy (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It had been a while, so I went ahead and made the changes. I used the reference I mentioned above to support the genres I added (and used another reference to make it so that CCM was supported by one). Thank you again. Squiddaddy (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Walter could you help me edit?

I would like to get better, but, I am up against the "I don't know how" monster. Like, I put the four tildes a couple of times and when I saved it said I did not sign. Another is, I changed a reference on the Gary Chapman page to one that had the author and put the 4 tildes and they showed up in the article. Do I erase everything up to the end of the sentence I am putting the cite for? Or is there another way to change the "better ref. needed"? And aren't we suppose to sign after the "/ref"? I also put up a paragraph in the Amy Grant talk section for you to look over before making a change to the article which is recommended in some of the discussion. Than you for your help.Hmmreally 02:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmmreally (talk • contribs)

Sorry for the late reply. Yes, of course I would be glad to help you edit, although it looks like you've had some help on your talk page from Dontreader already. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or place a {{Help me}} on your own talk page and someone should come to offer support. If you click on the link, it will take to you instructions on how to apply it there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Walter. I've given up on Hmmreally. Maybe I should keep on assuming good faith on his part, but I won't. I suspect he's trying to fool us and waste our time. His username looks suspicious to me. I could be wrong about this, and it wouldn't be the first time, but I think we should be cautious. If you look at all the help I've given him, especially with the signing issue, you might understand my position. It's as if he really doesn't care. You know the system much better than I do. There must be a way to warn him if he continues to show this pattern if he sends out a help signal or visits the Teahouse. At least I hope so. I'm quite frustrated with him, to be honest. You decide. Thanks. Dontreader (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to do things right. I don't have a lot of time as I work two jobs. I try to do the "show preview" to see if things look right before I submit, although I do forget the tildes and after I submit, it is too late to fix. Is there a step by step explanation somewhere? I am sorry if I have frustrated you Dontreader. Hmmreally 22:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmmreally (talk • contribs)

I really don't get it, it shows I signed but then says I didn't? I am going to sign only in the edit summary this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmmreally (talk • contribs) 22:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

So, in both cases, sign here with tildes it shows my signature yet it also states it is an autosign. In the seecond, I put the 4 tildes in the edit summary and it still is not right. In that case, it does NOT show I signed and put the signbot in. This is really frustrating. Hmmreally 22:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmmreally (talk • contribs)

Hmmreally, someone else helped you. Then I helped you with the tildes too, on your talk page. It's impossible to give a more detailed explanation for how and when to use the tildes. Please look again HERE. You are still signing in edit summaries while failing to sign on talk pages (despite my clear instructions), so I don't know how much that has to do with having two jobs. If you had forgotten to sign in both cases then I wouldn't be so suspicious of you. Anyway, I'll let Walter handle the situation from now on. Dontreader (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Niteshift36 (talk) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

---

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

I think we're on the same side and I've had good dealings with you in the past. I'm not sure what made each of us react how we did, but I apologize for my part. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Seal the Deal & Let's Boogie

Hi Mr. Görlitz. I can see that you have created a redirect from the article Seal the Deal & Let's Boogie which I created a week ago. I am mostly active on da:wiki, so there is probably a lot of policies that differs from en:wiki, but why isn't the upcoming album notable, when all the rest of the bands material is? I suppose that it will be notable, when it has been published? Kind regards Toxophilus (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It will be notable at some point, but right now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Are we at peace, and

…if not, is peace even possible? I am nearing done with what I can afford to do on this article. I have only found one good source in the last 5 years (though this allowed me to establish Sares as still being there as of 2014, and another one of the applied descriptive labels about the organization's perspectives). Perhaps you have or know of more.

Note, the Leadership section is intended to come out (be integrated broadly, elsewhere, as I explain in a markup note). It is simply in, now, because at present, we do not know "who was where, when," based on the current sources/analysis, and because having this gap-laden material in one place will help in its getting filled in. Even as awkward as the section appears, it lets people know who the Sares and other individuals are, before going into sections where he/they are repeatedly quoted.

Cheers, hope you are well. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I am well thanks. I am not at war with you, but I reported your battleground mentality. If you want to continue, I'll take what you have to offer. I appreciate your addition of good content, I don't appreciate your tag bombing. I appreciate your improving the content, removing bad content, but I'm not liking your insistence that it be done on your terms (a.k.a. page ownership). I have tried to improve the references and you reverted them because it wasn't done your way. I marked dead references as such, and you reverted and then marked the references as dead.

As I said, I'll wait until you're done with the article itself and then I'll work on adding my edits. I don't really want to be insulted by you again. Now to go explain myself at your ANI entry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Howard Benson Discography

Hi, Walter. I noticed that you recently deleted Howard Benson's discography due to its length and non-notable entries. Since Wikipedia:Requested articles/music requests that Benson's production discography should be created as its own page, I am going to create this page with the full discography. I am letting you know because of your dedicated editorial role to this subject. Let me know if you have any suggestions. Thanks. Paul1612 (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Paul1612: That sounds like a great idea. I removed it because it was unreferenced. I assume that the discog article you create will contain many references. I also remove it because many non-notable bands and non-notable recordings were being added. That should be addressed as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Noted. I also went ahead and cleaned up the original page to adhere to a coherent style and removed uncited materials. Thanks. Paul1612 (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Newmarket, Suffolk

Walter, I added a section for F-111 accident in the history section of Newmarket, Suffolk but another editor took the section out. Could you look at it to see if you agree that it is not a noteworthy event? Thanks, Hmmreally 22:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmmreally (talk • contribs)

"Wrong location"

What's the right location for {{No footnotes}} in an article that needs to be edited then, in the list of references? TherasTaneel (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Top of the article when applied to the whole article, just as it would go at the top of a section when applied to a section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Circle of Dust Updates

Hi Walter,

Kevin from FiXT here. We've been trying to update Klayton's Circle of Dust page only to have you undo them. Could you please stop, if you have any additional questions please email me - kevin@fixtonline.com or seek updates at circleofdust.net

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.18.9.199 (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That's disconcerting on multiple levels. Please stop adding unsourced information to promote your label. Thank you. If you create an account for your own use, I, or another editor, can provide information on how to edit when there is a conflict of interest. From this point forward, any unsourced information will have to be removed from any CoD-, FiXT- or Klayton-associated article since you have shown that you either can edit from multiple locations or have many editors who will edit on your behalf. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I provided sources for the content, so I think the issue has been resolved. Kevin, if there is any more content that your label wants in the article, you can propose it on the talk page of Circle of Dust and other editors, such as myself or Walter, can see if it is appropriate for the article. Sources supporting the content are needed for any proposed content, as well.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@3family6: I saw your updates. Thanks. Your advice to Kevin is also good. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Walter, thanks for the advice, I'm new to Wikipedia. Although I must admit it seems some of your accusations unfounded, as correcting information isn't necessarily "promoting"? Helpful yet not helpful at the same time.

Don't forget we should thank @3family6: for advice/assistance. Such a kind fellow. Really helped us get this issue FiXT. IXerro (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Split albums/collaborative albums and associated acts

Which talk archives address split albums and associated acts? I went through all the relevant discussions at Template talk:Infobox musical artist and couldn't find anything. I'm willing to abide by consensus, I just don't know what the consensus is.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@3family6: The discussion I was thinking of was Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 13#Associated acts, again, specifically FuriousFreddy's response. It was a typically short discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. That one got buried, apparently. I can understand the rationale, so I'll not press the issue.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Reno 1868 article

Thanks for pointing out that I was missing a citation for the crest release on May 26th. I couldn't find an official article stating that the first kit will be released on June 11th but they have stated it on social media. I removed that tidbit, regardless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaffOutLoud (talk • contribs) 02:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Requesting comment

Hey there! I've started an RfC at the talk page on Dallon Weekes to request for comments on a dispute on if info prior to the subject is relevant. You can read a longer explanation and comment on the RfC section here. Thanks! Sekyaw (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Mobile Orchestra

...Why? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 00:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind. I see now. Where did you get the idea that a single had to chart to be in that parameter? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. That's like saying Deftones' nu metal classics "7 Words" and "Bored" from Adrenaline were never singles. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 00:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

From the discussions at the template and the music project. If they were not released to radio, or were able to chart, not singles. That's what "single" in this sense means. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

But that's so stupid! How could you possibly think that you need charts to be singles? They're singles, whether they're successful or not. Notability should have nothing to do with this. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 14:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not really stupid. First, charts don't need to be singles, but songs that are release to chart are singles. Songs that are released to promote an album, as many songs are done now, are not singles.

Again, notability has nothing to do with this. That's WP:NSONG. But the singles template is for songs that were released to chart. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Ohh, you don't think it was released to a chart at all? K then. I see where you're going. But I'd be confident Owl City would've tried to get that to chart, by the way. It just didn't end up doing so. You think it's a promotional single. I doubt that, but you do have the right to question that. I was a bit confused. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it was a promotional single either. I don't know what it is as there's no reference to support how it was released.

When in the 50s through and to the 90s, labels could release songs to sales channels. These were 45 RPMS, 7-inch singles and cassette singles (or cassingles). if they were released to radio, they were considered singles. If not, they were promotional singles. Occasionally a band would only release a series of 45s. These would not be considered singles in the terminology of the time. In an age when you can take any song and release it individually to a sales channel, the concept of single by sales alone is too fuzzy and that's why the music project tends to discount those kinds of releases, whether they're a lyric video or other content that had no hope of charting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Sinterklaas

Hi, thanks for reverting my edit. I neglected to search for the NY angle. Gap9551 (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Rich Mullins biography

I have a tremendous amount of resources such as rare audio recordings, newspaper clippings, video recordings, photographs other tidbits that I would like to incorporate into the Rich Mullins wikipedia page where appropriate. To an extent, I knew him personally and have a few people who knew him even better then did. I noticed that you made a few changes and even a revision of the image to the article, and I appreciate your help. I can see that you are an experienced editor here and would like to work with you to better the biography. I hope you'll note that prior to my edits, the page was not in all that great of a shape. Among other problems, it has a lot of big, boxy quotes that don't really fit.

I must ask about the image though. I have an original copy of that image, among others, that was sent out in a press kit ~1995. I am curious as to why it's aceeptable to use the black and white picture, but not the colored one? You say "removed copyrighted image" -- and that's understandable, but why is the black and white picture acceptable? They are the same picture, even. I see no reason to not include the color picture. I have many more images that were taken personally by me or those that I know and am working on scanning them in (they date back to 1975) so they can be used. These images surely are not a copyright issue.

As for the kidbrothers.net source, I would like to note that most of those references were there prior to my edits. Like it or not like it, it's the most complete collections of information regarding Mullins on the internet. It sure does look ugly though... see... the kidbrother's page was not always as you see it now. In 2002, it was updated to a modern page. There was a server crash in ~2010 and the site lost a lot of it's content and it's pretty format. They ended up having to roll back to the "1996" version you see today. Brian, the webmaster has significant amounts of content and pulls some of his information from obscure -- but reliable -- articles, such as an interview conducted in 1986 -- "Live Like You'll Die Tomorrow - Rich Mullins Speaks His Mind, The Cross Examiner, Brian Smith, October 1, 1986." It's just a matter of sifting through it all.

I also appreciate the "clean up" that you did on the page. In fact, as you were in there cleaning it up, I was as well and there was an edit conflict. I am new to editing wikipedia, so I do appreciate your help. You'll probably see me popping in and out of that article tomorrow as I sift through my stack of photos, articles, etc, but other then that I don't have much to contribute. Medic454 (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks That the links to the fan site were preexisting, does not make them less dubious.

As for the publicity image, there is a way to upload it without breaking copyright. Scan it. Upload it and apply an appropriate Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, also known as a fair use rationale and be sure to explain that it is an image used for the purposes of publicity and is "irreplaceable".

You should get used to the arcane rules fairly quickly. If you're interested in sticking around, let me know and I can point you to the Christian music working group. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Walter, I appreciate it. I can scan it in and upload it. In the nicest way, I don't really have much to offer other then being a trove of resources for this one particular article. So other then that, I won't be sticking around much, ha. Medic454 (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Christ for the Nations Institute

Hi Walter, I work for Christ for the Nations Institute and we created the account THEREALCFNI to update and organize the School page on Wikipedia. I started updating a couple minor things yesterday and there's so much yet to do (even changing the logo for the newest version we have now), but I see there must be something I don't know about the edit process. I'm trying to learn the process but honestly I find it confusing (to me) so I started editing so I could learn while doing it. Apparently you know a lot about it and you've been editing our page for a long time, so if you're available, I could really use your help if possible.

Thank you so much! Patricia THEREALCFNI (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

When employees edit articles related to their employers, it could be seen as a problem. I have put information on your talk page related to that.

If you want help, I would be glad to help you. Start by reading the information I have left. The links should guide you through the basics. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Just leave a {{help}} request there. I'll watch your talk page and try to respond within the same day. Realize, of course, that I, like almost every editor, is a volunteer. I have a regular job and a life outside of editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, got it! I'm going to check everything out! Thank you for your help! THEREALCFNI (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Kamelot Founder Thomas Youngblood

Hi

We understand you have deleted the wiki page for Kamelot's founder and power metal pioneer Thomas Youngblood. Please reinstate immediately and we will make some needed updates to the page as well. Also we noticed you edited Roy Khan the same day. We have notified Wikipedia regarding this biased decision. You need to reverse the deletion as once! Sincerely, TIm Norwood — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim norwood (talk • contribs) 19:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

We? Am I to assume that you represent more than one individual? If so you need to disclose that on your talk page.

I believe that you are mistaken. I did not delete the article for Thomas Youngblood, I redirected it to his band's page as it was without any reference. I won't be "reversing" the redirect at any time. I would encourage you to learn how to edit and be a constructive editor on the project. If you want to revert it, follow this link and click undo. I will follow that up with tagging the article with {{BLP unsourced}} if you have not already added sources when I see the revert. For the record, I probably should have performed a Google search to find reliable sources to improve the article, but I prefer to let fans or other editors do that.

The fact that I removed OVERLINKs, correctly formatted and purged bad content from the Roy Khan article on the same day is perfectly acceptable. I hope that you and "Wikipedia" have a good conversation about that because there was no biased editing there at all.

Now, I get the feeling that you are making veiled legal threats, but I'll assume instead that you're just new to this and think that you can push others into your bidding. This isn't a schoolyard, and bullying doesn't work here. In fact, there's a policy about making legal threats that you might want to read. Admins take that very seriously.

Finally, if you need help editing, I would be glad to assist you. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Surely you are familiar with AGF. While I understand the tone of the request may have struck a nerve (I'd be turned off by someone who said "you need to reverse the deletion at once!"), let's remember that not everyone is fully conversant with how Wikipedia works. While you did change an article into a redirect, it is perfectly understandable that an outsider would see that as the deletion of an article. In fact, I'm not entirely sure it qualifies as a best practice, as it effectively deleted an article without going through the normal deletion processes.

I'm in conversation with the individual at OTRS. I don't think the best approach is to simply reinstate the article as it was not compliant, so my intention is to suggest that they start over in draft space, and get it reviewed and if it's acceptable it'll be easy enough to move it over the redirect. Does that sound like a sensible plan to you?--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Of course I'm familiar with AGF. What did I write that makes it appear as

1. I am not familiar with it, and
2. did not assume and show good faith in the editor(s)?

Feel free to explain.

Your suggestion is fine as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up, I just cited my source. It was really nice of you to tell me about it. Keep it up!

lcard9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcard9 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Alessandro Venezia

Hello, Im a new volunteer here on wikipedia and my first random article is Alessandro Venezia. It has very little sources. Please help me edit. Thank you.--Italy2020 (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Lacuna Coil Delirium "genre warrior"

While I do agree the genres listed were sufficient, the album is very metalcore in my opinion. Symphonic metalcore as a genre seems odd though. MisfitGhoul (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @MisfitGhoul: Opinions have no place in articles, also Sub-genres should not be used in the infobox per the templates documentation. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the addition was that it was made by an editor who had been hitting multiple articles and adding unsourced genres. Really, every band/artist and album article should have a style section and it should discuss what reliable sources say about the genre. That should be summarized in the infobox. Too many people think that they know what genres are, but the don't pass the test of reliability as Mlpearc has stated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

prods > redirects.

Check out user Kvng. Didn't want to mention on project page. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

That Australian IP with an interest in Miss Meyers

Glad to see someone else chime in on the article's talkpage. That particular editor seems to have a continuing interest in specifically dating her birthday...in addition to vague mentions about other matters. Shearonink (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Anberlin

Now that I see this, I would've used a Talkback at first, but now I've got much more to say. I see that you like stuff in different locations. If you want to move this, go ahead, but I'm not going to, there's so much I have to talk about. You are incredibly hasty and revert my additions as vandalism. I won't put them back in just yet, though, as that would be genre warring. They are perfectly valid sources, and I personally think you seem to be having oversights because people have just fought about this stuff so much.

• Feel Good Drag: Anberlin is not post-grunge, under any circumstances, without a reliable source. I won't believe it. There are no sources for it in the article (unless I've made a grave Ctrl+F error). Thus, I have the right to challenge it per WP:V: "...any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material."
• Vital: You're right, "Electronic-tinged hard rock" is not a genre. "Electronic-tinged" may be part of the quote, but you are misinterpreting it: rather, it is hard rock in addition to electronic influences. And influences enough are not strong enough for inclusion. Thus, it's not officially part of the genre.
• Bio article (Anberlin): You have reverted me for no reason other than to make it the way it was before, and you marked it as vandalism. It was all in good faith. Read the quote! It doesn't matter that the article's an album review, he mentioned the band's overall sound, Jeez! And look at the sources for their albums, too! At least two emo albums, and Breaking (song) is also marked emo. (Maybe you missed that last one.) But two reliably sourced albums seems justifiable for inclusion.

dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 00:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I can only support what the reliable sources say. If you want to remove a genre, go ahead, provided that no reliable sources support the genre. However adding sources is a bit trickier. It's not clear if the reviewers are adding adjectives to genres or stipulating that new genres should be defined. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you really think "tinged" is going to be attached to any hip new genre? I think you and I'll both be in the ground (or have become ashes) before that happens. And what about the bio? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The bio page is probably fine now. I think you've made the case for emo with more than one album exhibiting qualities of the genre. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you really think "tinged" is going to be attached to any hip new genre? I think you and I'll both be in the ground (or have become ashes) before that happens. It's just a huge mouthful that no one will ever recognize. Conversely, "hard rock" is clear to me, and electronics are just part of the root hard rock that he wants to get across. He could've written that several different ways and meant the same thing, yet only certain ways he wrote it can be used for citation? That's so stupid. It must just seem clearer to me. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Persons versus a band

Hello Walter. I don't understand your revert on The Violet Burning. The article is clearly about a band, which is essentially a project. No remark about any personal aspect of any band member is being mentioned. Then why have a template that says "This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful."? If you think it's poorly sourced, you might look for an appropriate template (or improve the article), but please not that one. Apdency (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't understand. Bands that include living people are considered part of the BLP project. If you check the talk page you'll see {{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|musician-work-group=yes|needs-photo=yes|class=stub|musician-priority=Low. Other bands are like this, check U2, etc. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I read there "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons." Well, I think such things have been written for a reason: to protect living people from libel, suspections, bias etc. I don't see what protection is needed when we read no more person-related info than "The band was formed in 1989 in Orange County, California by Michael J. Pritzl.", "The band is the project of singer/guitarist/songwriter Michael J. Pritzl.", and a list of members and other musicians. Perhaps that is en.wikipedia.org's policy, and than I would not go against that, but I don't see any rationality in it. Apdency (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Michael is still alive.

Bono is still alive.

That's why band articles are considered to be part of BLPs.

On a separate note, why would you not substitute {{refimprove}} instead of removing {{BLP sources}}? Your action constitutes removal of a template. Not understanding than bands are part of the biographies of living people project is understandable. The latter is not excusable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hm, it seems that, like on my “home” wiki (nl), “BLP” has in many cases become a parameter within a mathematical formula, whereby its original goals have gotten a position in the background. I will not elaborate on this matter. But yes, the other template you mention seems more appropriate to me. Do as you please, and if you like their music: enjoy (no irony intended). Apdency (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

MOS:LINK

Greetings! Sorry, to whom was your latest reply directed to at WP:MOS?[1] I thought it can't be mine, since we agreed on the question. However, I couldn't find the connection the the post before that either, since there were no "question asked" in that post. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

It was meant as a reply to the person before yours. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that clarified a lot! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Wambach

If you have time, can you take a look at the recent edits to the Abby Wambach article? Hmlarson (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Beachwood Canyon (Jem album)

In view of recent discussions you might wish to inspect redirects to this album and the date created. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit of Der Kommissar

Dear Walter, Thank you for your kind feedback about "Der Kommissar!" I had just started out, and you handled the change very nicely. I have since cited my sources, but I'll watch it from now on. ;) Much love. Lcard9 (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

ICC

Just because you are not able to see the policy change of the ICC organizers between the 2013-2014 editions and the 2015-2016 does not mean this policy does not exist or is not obvious. The invitation of clubs like Olympiakos, Leicester, Benfica or Sporting in the North America tournament while clubs with higher reputation but no title are sent to China and Australia is something worth noticing. The fact that YOU like it or not is not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.146.216.130 (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, if it can't bee seen, it does not exist as far as Wikipedia is concerned. See WP:V for what counts. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

What can't you see? Who won what? Just follow the links... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.146.216.130 (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

That they were invited because of some special feat.

What it looks like to me is that the teams were invited because they are known to the audiences. That they won something is circumstantial.

The UK-based teams are not all winners.

The Spanish teams are not all winners.

The Italian teams are not all winners.

German winners are not invited every year.

No French winners have ever been invited.

No Scottish, Welsh, or Irish winners have ever been invited.

No teams or clubs from other European nations have ever been invited.

It's all about who the organizers think can sell tickets, not about an achievement they have earned. This set of pre-season friendlies (for the European clubs) and mid-season friendlies for the other teams. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Flatlists

Hey Walter,

May I know why are you so against the use of flatlists? I know it's for lists of more than 3 items, but you revert the use of them many times even though many albums on Wikipedia use them (see Adele's "25" for example). Is it ok to use flatlists for lists of more than 3 items (e.g. the 4 genres on Needtobreathe's page)? Looking forward to a reply. Daerl (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I've explained it every time the question comes up, but it's not really obvious, it looks like desktop publishing in 1993. Everyone used bullets to separate lists and so it feels dated. If someone could convert flatlists to use the same HTML markup but retain the commas, I would have no problems with it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Problem?

In Talk:Scrum (software development), you seem... less than appreciative of me. You are repeatedly addressing me, not the article. We are in agreement, as far as I can tell, on the subject of capitalization of agile and Scrum. You seem to be taking a stand against the method by which I agree? To what purpose? Have I done something to offend? If so, I apologize; nothing of the sort was intended. --A D Monroe III (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I am addressing you directly because you are the only one arguing against MOS:CAPS and want scrum terms capitalized. Correct me if I'm wrong in that assumption, because that's the way I read it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

As stated at the top of the discussion, I actually wanted "scrum" and edited the article to be that; my edit was reverted by the OP of the discussion, citing MOS. I stepped out of stating right or wrong at that point, since I don't know all the sources using "scrum" or "Scrum". I explained why I accepted being reverted, pending sources and discussion. I then responded to different editors' comments that implied their opinions on the meaning or purpose of Scrum might decide the issue rather than MOS, or even on agile -- which was really off-topic. I tried to direct the discussion away from those to arrive at consensus.

But even if you thought I had a difference of opinion, why comment on me instead of my opinion? Your last replies even approached being a threat. I'm not threatened, of course, but it makes your arguments seem personal and less valid. It's easy to remain CIVIL if you avoid mentioning other editors, which also improves the weight of the arguments. But, I'm sure you know that already. I still don't see how we got to this. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia summary

Thank you for pointing this out to me, I would just like to let you know that I have been trying to type my summary of my edits, but whenever I try to summarize what I've changed, I type on my phone, but nothing shows up in the box, I'm sure this is a bug, and if there is anything you could do to help fix it, that would be much appreciated. Thanks, Dalton LegosRoCk9 (talk) 05:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I can certainly suggest a solution: stop using your phone. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Guardiola

Hi; the style of play section in the Guardiola article already describes him as a creative and technically gifted midfielder who played as a deep-lying playmaker and provides several reliable sources; I felt it was appropriate to summarise this in the lead and specify that he wasn't a traditional defensive midfielder, but usually from what I know we aren't supposed to include sources in the lead, that's why I didn't provide any citations, so I'm not sure what would be best in this case. Best regards, Messirulez (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Hey Walter, I left you a message over at RFPP. Please take a look when you have a moment. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 01:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

August Burns Red references

Sorry for adding a genre without leaving a reference, I forgot about that. Anyway, I send this to you because I noticed the reference of Melodic Metalcore in the album Constellations has expired. Just for you to know and check the other ones as well. So long. Darkmatter17 (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean. The domain has expired. Feel free to mark it with a {{dead link}} template and a bot might be able to rescue the reference. I'm upset that it's not a professional review though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

GND2

I reckon the comment in the cited source is actually rather relevant: "faith-based films have an easy time gaining A CinemaScores" is true, the consensus of professional critics is that the film is pretty bad, but the choir definitely like the preaching. Guy (Help!) 10:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to change WP:MOSLINK opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Greetings! Were you aware that a proposal has been made at Wikipedia Talk:Manual of style#Proposed revision: links within quotes instead of the forum where it belongs, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking? The proposal is to link terms within quotations, but I am really concerned how widely this sort of policy discussion will reach the people if it's not even discussed at its very own forum. What do you think? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference for List of Christian Metal artists

Hey Walter I was wondering if this link would be a reference for Christian Metal. http://www.metalforjesus.org/ref.html Metalworker14 (Yo) 00:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Metalworker14: I suppose it depends what you want to use it for. It fails the criteria for determining genres that they would use at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and otherwise, there's not much there. Feel free to ask at WP:RSN or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christian music though as that's just my opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Journey into the Morn

My apologies about crossediting this page at the same time you were - I was attempting to correct the last editor's changes that were incorrct and that collided with yours - sorry. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it's in the correct state now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

apart from the band info itself - which was the subject of my intended changes. Do you want to correct his - or shall I. Wouldn't do to stumble over each other again!. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I think I made the changes so the it's "van", but if missed something, please feel free to edit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok - I have remade my band lineup mods - which reverse the other editor 'incorrect' mods - but maintaining at least the 'spirit' of you changes. Hope these meet with you approval. Be aware I out "reversed" you changes as I just happened to be working on both this album page and the band page at the same time - not knowing you were at work. If I have know I would not have messed with you changes. Again sorry. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Regression testing page

Hello Walter, I had entered a link to a white paper on SAP Business Objects Regression testing. I do not understand why it was not relevant. This white papers very well written with examplesaround that subject. Can you comment. Take care http://www.gbandsmith.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/mitigate_risks_linked_to_conformity_in_SAP_BusinessObjects.pdf LanceT (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

First, you didn't link to the pdf directly, you lined to www.gbandsmith.com/optimize_migration_to_sap_bo_bi4 (diff). That page is busy trying to promote the company, not a concept. Second, is there an author? It's hard to determine if the author is a recognized expert in the field if there isn't one. I linked to WP:SPAMLINK when I reverted. Did you read it or the rest of that page?

And you can't play innocent. Your edits have been solely to promote that company. At the very least, that makes you a single-purpose account, and at the very worst, it places in a conflict of interest, something declared here and deleted without explanation by you here.

I'd like to assume good faith, but it's hard to do with people who are on Wikipedia to promote their own self-interests or are paid to promote the interests of a company. I'm sorry if I didn't not answer your question, but I think that you are playing innocent when what you're actually trying to do is promote your company and improve its SEO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Discuss changes made to wiki page that were reverted

The changes that I made to the wiki page on Software configuration management got reverted. Could you please elaborate on what wrong I did? I went through your comment in Talk but could not figure out what exactly you meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmkhande (talk • contribs) 21:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

You made a number of edits intertwined with another editor on that page. It would have been difficult to tease them apart so I simply reverted them completely. Some violated MOS:LEAD. Some added excessive bullet points. Large sections were removed. I didn't bother to determine who made what edits: I just reverted it all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I respect

The continuing work you do, and your fair observations about the capriciousness surrounding use of WP's 3RR bludgeon. (Also an Agile-Scrum "devotee" of sorts—we use in my collaborative consulting teams.) If I can ever be of any help to you, in a 3RR or any contentious situation, as a potential fellow peacemaker, please seek me out. Signing from an IP from which I often edit, but you can also find me as User:Leprof_7272, with accompanying further (dated) personal information there. Le Prof 73.211.138.148 (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

....deletion of the Rocksteady Choir Wikipedia page

Hello Walter...

Well I am sure you'd had quite enough of my earnest but insufficient attempts to modifiy/justify the page about the Rocksteady Choir...I was also growing tired of the seemingly endless journey.

Anyway, I appreciate that your comments attempted to guide me through the labyrinth of 'first time' page construction. I may try again, with a different better-documented attempt.

The Rocksteady Choir Wiki is now gone...but there is the trail of proceedings, deletion discussion etc. still taking up space on the Wikipedia servers. Is tĥere a way to delete these discussions concerning the long 'back and forth' leading to final deletion? Frankly, it is a bit embarrassing for myself (and likely not exactly an encouragement to anyone from the choir) to have this trail still accessible by anyone online.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and I do appreciate any assistance in deleting it...

regards Katiefelix2015 (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC) Katie

I have never seen a deletion discussion be deleted. Feel free to read Wikipedia:Deletion process, but I suspect that it would require WP:OTRS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Katiefelix2015: I have not look closely at the discussion, but I want to encourage you by saying that you did try. You tried your best to create an article, and though things have not turned out the way you wanted, I admire your effort in trying to write a Wikipedia article, and also fighting for its retainment. I hope you won't be upset by the deletion discussion, what Wikipedians want is to ensure that notable and properly sourced people, places and things are featured on Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions! Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 02:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I also wanted to add that one quirk about Wikipedia is that there are a lot of processes involved. The reason why you got hit by so many "deletion notices" was because Wikipedia has a few processes when it comes to deletion, so when people feel that an article should be deleted, they will first go through step one, and if it fails, they can then choose step two. If anything, Wikipedia aims to protect your article by ensuring that the community comes together to discuss and talk about it so your article is given due respect and thought, before further action is taken. I hope this will help you in understanding more about how Wikipedia works. Cheers! Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 02:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Want to help test advanced new tools planned for Recent Changes?

Hi Walter! I’m reaching out to you because our logs tell us you’re a very active Twinkle user (top 25, actually!). The WMF Collaboration team is working on new tools that we hope will be useful to people engaged in reviewing recent changes, fighting vandalism or supporting new users. We want to test them for usability with editors who are experienced with relevant wiki work. If you’re interested in helping to shape this new technology—we’d like to hear from you.

The testing should take about an hour, will be conducted online, and will take place during the next few weeks. To participate, please email dchen[at]wikimedia.org with the subject line Twinkle User. Include the following information:

• Username
• Email where we can reach you
• Your city or time zone
• Best time to talk to you
• Your primary use of Twinkle or Recent Changes (e.g., reviewing recent changes, reviewing with a particular focus (specify), anti-vandalism, new-page review, welcoming new users, etc.)

Thanks! Dchen (WMF) (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not have a COI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I read the guidelines and I am confident that I am adhering to them with my edits. I am just making the article more accurate. Thank you. Webgirljess (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 19:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Webgirljess. You mentioned here that you work for for the article subject TobyMac. Please do read WP:COI carefully again regarding Wikipedia's guidelines for users creating and/or editing articles about themselves or the people they work for. Please also read the policy Wikipedia:Ownership of content and understand that no one owns any page on Wikipedia or the content on it. You are not blocked from Wikipedia, but you are strongly encouraged to refrain from editing, as Wikipedia's concern about editors who are associated to the article subject or being paid by them to edit, is that such editors may be biased to talk about the article subject in an undue light, or enter into disputes with other editors over things which they may disagree with.

• If you are involved as an editor working for the article subject and tasked to edit his/her Wikipedia page, you are encouraged to state your involvement on your user page.
• If you are being paid to edit Wikipedia, you are required by policy to declare who is paying you to edit. Please read WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE and WP:DISCLOSEPAY.

Lastly, please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view regarding one of Wikipedia's most important rules on the neutrality of all articles and its content.

We thank you for your contributions, and we hope to see you editing constructively and within Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 03:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I suggest you do not revert Webgirljess' edits unless it's a clear violation of WP:NPOV or other policies. WP:COI is not a reason to revert an edit as substance and verifiability of the content is separate from the person who wrote it. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 03:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Optakeover: No. I reverted because Webgirljess deleted verifiable content and added an ugly image.

@Webgirljess:, the edit where you wrote "I work for TobyMac and am adjusting his page per his management says you do have a conflict of interest. And now you have lied on my talk page, either with the edit where you claimed to work for the subject and were working under his direction, or when you stated that you did not have a conflict of interest. This discussion belongs on your talk page, not mine. Stay off my page except to warn me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jared Dines

Hey Walter, how's it going? Hey awhile back, you deleted my page for Jared Dines saying the sources were "second hand" I believe or something along those lines. I think time has passed where there have been several new sources for Dines. Do you think there is enough sources to make a better and improved page for Jared Dines? Metalworker14 (Yo) 2:48, September 24, 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I didn't delete it, Cubbie15fan nominated it for deletion and three other editors was agreed that it should be deleted. In that deletion discussion I stated "The problem is that the coverage of the subject in reliable sources is not significant. It's brief mentions of his humour videos." I have not checked if there are RSes, but you can suggest it at WP:AfC or create a draft of it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Atlanta United FC

Hi Walter, I've mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #Atlanta United FC, where I'm asking for the "right version" to be restored. --RexxS (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Mickeydee15

That's not vandalism on List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes. It's a content dispute which you are contributing to as well. I'm giving both of you a warning for edit warring on that article. Please stop reverting and discuss. If the editor breaches 3RR please report to WP:AN3. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

On further reflection I have issued them a short block — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I just changed my IP to the IP of the previous message, to show both were made by the same commenter. I did not modify or edit someone else's comment, nor did I edit the contents of my own. I've created a username to properly sign my posts. Thanks! Calveer (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Since this is a shared IP, and I cleared up the confusion about the signature change (I did not edit someone else's comment, I did not edit the contents of my own comments), could you please remove the out-of-place bad practice warning on the IP talk page? Thanks in advance! Calveer (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't do that. If you go from an anonymous editor to a registered one, simply live with the change. If you accidentally edit while logged out, there are warnings telling you not to. You did edit another editor's comment's even though that editor was you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong and not very helpful, nor welcoming. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Own_comments vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments . Nowhere did I deprive my own comments of their context, in fact, I clarified the context (same author). Please refrain from giving out bad practice warnings in the future when you don't know the rules they supposedly violated. Thanks! Calveer (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

So here's the problem, you claim that that is your IP, but you can't prove it is, at least not to me. When you use one IP, 132.255.244.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Blue Telecomunicacoes Do Brasil Ltda in Sao Paolo) change another, 201.85.54.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Uol Diveo S.A. in Sao Paolo), there's no way to know that they are the same person, and so it's simply wrong. Then you come along and create an account and claim that they're both you. None of the guidelines for editing your own talk page comments applies because there's no proof that any of them are you. And I guarantee that if you try to justify it one more time, I'll drop it on another group's lap who will be required to investigate. The best case is that you will be informally warned. The worst case is a short block. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm sorry, but have we met?

This comment bothered me, and I couldn't put my finger on why until just now -- what did you mean by "as usual"? I didn't recognize your user name and didn't recall ever interacting with you before, and editorinteract implies that our only prior interaction was this. Am I forgetting something? I apologizeif I am. And I feel I should clarify my reason for asking -- a couple of years back, JoshuSasori (talk · contribs) was abusing the Wikimedia email service and a number of sockpuppet accounts in order to email anywhere between four or five and several dozen users, specifically claiming that I was making mountains out of molehills. Did someone tell you that making mountains out of molehills was a recurring habit of mine? Or have you been monitoring my edits independently for whatever reason? Or did you just misspeak and by "as usual" you meant something else? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Only referring to the discussion on OT talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Album ratings

Hi again. Would you be willing to weigh in this RfC regarding AnyDecentMusic? should be added in the album ratings template like Metacritic, because the website is another review aggregator. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

OS X/macOS

Regarding some recent revert edits of yours showing up on my watchlist (for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LibreOffice&curid=28981081&diff=747585463&oldid=747495745), you might want to rethink. Try visiting OS X, or compare with this recent categories discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_8 ZackTheCardshark (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@ZackTheCardshark: I agree. I arrived at work today to find an update notice on one the Macs I maintain. When I opened it, the ad for the OS update no longer referred to "OS X", but to "macOS". Feel free to revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: LibreOffice, Apache OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org re-reverted. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Joe Cannon

Looking for some clarification here as to your most recent edit to Joe Cannon (soccer). I read through your edit summary and found an explanation in Template:Citation as to why you delinked locations, however I could not find any information as to why you changed the |website parameters to |publisher.

The template states "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website).", which in this case would be the website. Additionally, "Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher)." which would lead me to believe that we wouldn't need the |publisher field at all, unless there was a major difference from the website itself.

Thoughts here? GauchoDude (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@GauchoDude: You should talk to the creator of the script about that. The main reason I ran it was because you linked the cities, which is wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius: Any insight here? GauchoDude (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

the |website= parameter is an alias of |work=, which is a field for news journals and other works; it does not universally apply to websites per WP:ITALICS. I objected to the parameter as I knew it would cause confusion, but that's another matter... The script will look for signs that a domain name has been inserted, and if the case, will convert |work= into |publisher=. So unless there is otherwise consensus to start changing the formatting of websites into italics, websites are universally not italicised. If you feel that the website in question fulfills the conditions to be considered a work, the name should be written out in full without the domain name suffices (ie New York Times and not Nytimes.com). Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius: If websites shouldn't be italicized, but are via |website= because it's under |work=, how can we go about rectifying the situation? From a very basic standpoint (and forgive me for probably glossing over the much more technical side of things), can't we 1. un-italicize instances of |website= or 2. make |website= an alias of |publisher= instead of |work=? As I understand, it stands to reason right now that instances of |website= *should* appear italicized because that's what the consensus is, hence the current output. While, in my opinion, I believe the current consensus is wrong, shouldn't we adhere to this until we're able to either 1. get it changed or 2. find a different solution to |website=? GauchoDude (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

There are knowledgeable template experts at Template talk:Citation who may be able to provide some answers to the questions and issues you are facing. Failing that, you may attempt to create a new consensus on the issue. It's the best I can suggest, I'm afraid. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 17:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

PS: @Jonesey95: maybe you can help?-- Ohc ^¡digame! 18:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The best place to raise this issue is Help talk:Citation Style 1. Before posting there, read this 2015 discussion and this late-2015 RFC. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Enjoy

GamerCat2016 (talk) 06:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I'm sorry if l disappointed you please forgive me and please read my page also I'm actually a Christian GamerCat2016 (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

AFD

Hello, Walter Görlitz. Can you comment on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ollie_Barbieri. scope_creep (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks scope_creep (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

LA Galaxy

Sorry, got caught up in mass revert of a disruptive editor... GiantSnowman 07:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! The article in question is BarlowGirl. Take care. --LABcrabs (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Viking metal FAC

I understand that this might be a bit out of your typical editing zone, but I have nominated Viking metal as a featured article candidate. If you would like to comment on it, please do so, as it hasn't been getting a lot of attention. You can go here if interested. Thanks,--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Your question

I answered here. Dimitry Polivaev (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Deleting I Can't Quit

Hello Walter Görlitz! This is AKA Casey Rollins. I noticed you put a notability tag on my article I Can't Quit. If you want to delete it, please move it to the draft namespace instead, as I am still looking for better sources and citations. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 13:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

But it doesn't look like that is needed now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Archives

Walter,

How do you archive your talk page? Am I creating a folder and moving info into the folder? Mine is getting a little big.

Thanks Roberto221 (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Roberto221: There are several options. Most are listed at Help:Archiving a talk page. However I move the whole page and edit logs to an archive page and create a new archive here, replacing the redirect that is left.

There is also a JavaScript utility that allows you to move any section to an archive. See User:Technical 13/Scripts/OneClickArchiver. It requires an archiving configuration on your talk page, but it is the easiest. It does not, however, allow you move edit history. That will always remain associated with your current talk page. Hope that helps. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinite_block_for_Cedric

I can't believe that took so long to close as a boomerang. Meters (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Meters: Cedric was behaving during the ANI so there was no rush from the admins. Closing admin's comments are telling: 100% agreement that the block was needed. Perhaps admins were hoping to see some sympathy. We'll see where his appeals take him. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --JustBerry (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TVC Capital

Hi Walter, can you please comment at the above Afd. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Scope creep: I am not sufficiently familiar with corporate articles to discuss intelligently. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Revelator (Phil Keaggy album) Comment

Hi Walter Görlitz,

The reversion on the above page was to bring the list back in line with the remainder of it, the entire list was headed with capital letters prior to the edit by the ip editor. After their edit the list contained a mix of upper and lower case words starting each line in the list. The MOS says that although their is no preference to them starting with upper or lower case it should be consistent throughout the list, hence my revert per MOS and consistency. Hope that explains it. Amortias (T)(C) 13:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Amortias: The anon's edits were correct per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#Personnel. The Hammond B3 organ should be capitalized (as should the Mellotron, but I fixed that). What other problems did you see? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)