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

You're welcome. It's just that you hit articles that I watch. And I don't know if it's cleaning-up after you, it's just that when a page that I've watch changes, I tend to go in with "new eyes" and clean-up as per my understanding of WP:MOS and other guidelines. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It's just that you hit articles that I watch.

Ah, that explains it then. To be honest, I'm primarily focusing on moving the reviews out of album infoboxes. I might do some other fixes in the process, but when I'm not sure I just leave that to others. Regards, -- Skysmurf  (Talk) 19:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hi Walter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get some examples and take it to either Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance or, as follow the suggestions at WP:WIKIHOUNDING. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope it doesn't come to that, but get a little tired of "the most unhelpful editor in Wiki"... Ckruschke (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Wikiquette assistance is not manned by admins. I've been there in the past and have weighed-in on several issues that have been listed there. Sometimes attackers are intractable, but in other cases, the issues can be resolved. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm going to try at this point WP:Ignore all dramas as he attacks me and my edits in the Talk page and hope he gets bored with my silence. If not, we'll go down the path that you have suggested. I've been through enough mediations (as an onlooker) of people who don't understand that THEY are the problem to know that it's not fun. Thanks again Walter - always reassuring to talk to you! Keep the faith. Ckruschke (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

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

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

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

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 02:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The following are in chronological order:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Crowder_Band&diff=470643330&oldid=470534140 2012-01-10T17:19:43
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Crowder_Band&diff=471037023&oldid=471034986 2012-01-12T21:52:43
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Crowder_Band&diff=471053482&oldid=471053132 2012-01-12T23:52:36
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Crowder_Band&diff=471056872&oldid=471056289 2012-01-13T00:17:43

For the record, it's after 2012-01-14T02:23:28‎ and so I'm no danger of going over 3RR, but I do understand the issue. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I fully understand you but you have not discussed the dispute with the other editor. Even though i'm not an administrator, making edit summaries such as O look. See your talk page. Still below quality and references do not meet standards. sounds close to a personal attack. I agree that editors are sometimes hard to work with and continue to disrupt as much as they want, but giving inappropriate edit summaries such as this is not appropriate on Wikipedia. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 02:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Those are in direct response to an editor who is not cooperative. See the editor's talk page and his actions on the article's talk page (removing all comments and then only his and alternating between anon and signed-in). As for this issue, I have pointed the editor to the appropriate template and the correct usage, which was the issue here. Thanks for you concern and following-up. No offence taken BTW, and I appreciate the reminder. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, this is for the talk page, not the article space. I didn't realize that 3rr applied to talk pages, but I just checked and it does. Got it. Please address the other editor in question as they were violating talk page policy. I recognize that I should have left it after one revert and allowed an admin or other editor to revert. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 02:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

 You warned about 3RR, not about WP:REDACT Although that may not be necessary as it seems as though the editor in question is trying to get out of Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Hey Walter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It wasn't deleted, it was redirected to distributed social network. It doesn't seem to have an edit history either I don't know what happened. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No there was an article before the new redirection. — Neustradamus (✉) 16:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The vote was taken. I'm sorry you weren't notified. I use a tool and it to nominate articles for deletion and the original authors are notified when listing articles for deletion. This is that notification. I don't believe it's my responsibility to notify everyone who has edited an article about a deletion vote. One thing further, you're not supposed to edit a closed deletion vote. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

But can you see for recover the Jappix page? — Neustradamus (✉) 11:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Ping? Can you recover the original page before the redirection, it is possible I know. — Neustradamus (✉) 01:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought I had answered this. I'm glad you asked again. You need to read Wikipedia:Viewing and restoring deleted pages and the follow its instructions. I am not an admin so I can't do anything. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try! — Neustradamus (✉) 16:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Walter Görlitz

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

Thank you in advance.

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

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

Thank you. How do I contact the admins?

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

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

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

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

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

One was an external link, the other was a reference. They are reliable sources as they are written by a specialist in the field. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources please.

ELNO#11 states, "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people." Please address my concern that the external links do not meet this criteria.

Who says he's "specialist in the field" and how does this claim make the source acceptable. Please provide a source for your claim about his expertise, and please quote WP:RS where you believe it allows such sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

He's appeared on the subject at conferences. Therefore he is an expert. One of the links is the talk he gave at one conference. You're arguing from a point of ignorance and it's not a good place to argue from when we're trying to create an encyclopedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Walter, are you saying that because this guy "appeared on the subject at conferences" we must consider his self-published paper on his website a reliable source? Because that isn't so. Jonathunder (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm saying. If you don't like that answer, take the guy's site to WP:RS because they will back that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you've not addressed either concern beyond requesting it be brought to RSN. That is separate from the external link issue, so I expect that's no longer in dispute. --Ronz (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. You haven't offered a valid argument and any actions to remove it will be seen as uncooperative editing. If you'd like to point me to where this private discussion took place so I may address your concerns I'd be glad to, but carrying on conversations in private is not appropriate. I see no discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I see no discussion at all. All I see is a reliable source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to take a break from this. I've been discussing two different issues, and have identified and even quoted the relevant policies/guidelines. You're treating them as one issue. Stop and read what I've written. --Ronz (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

For the EL you want to know who says the author is an authority in the field:

StickyMinds is the most popular testing web site. It is the online arm of the most popular testing magazine Better Software. They also host three conferences: StarEast, StarWest, and EuroStar. Paul Gerrard has published eight articles, most on the topic of risk-based testing. He is also mentioned in 16 other articles.

Do you have a source to indicate that he's not an expert? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people." --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at StickyMinds. When you have an understanding of what they do, come back to discuss. This is common practice in the software testing world. Every authority has their own site and this is no exception. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

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

The hostility is a reflection of your increasing obtuse responses to plain questions. I'm glad you're giving this a break. Take the time to learn how to communicate well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

At least we both agree that you're hostile. I think it's best to ignore you until you decide to take responsibility for your behavior and attempt to follow our behavioral policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you just need to follow the common rules of etiquette so that you don't create hostility in others. I take responsibility for my actions but you sir are devoid of any responsibility and so I assume you're amoral. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. Sorry. I was confused. Down with a cold and a bit tired and dealing with two other issues. Not an excuse for the confusion and I should go clear that up. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok. The venim caught me a little off guard, or rather alot, but I can sympathize - I've been known to jump down people's throats too when I felt like crap... Ckruschke (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Your recent editing history at Nobody's Fault but Mine shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Radiopathy •talk• 02:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

I noticed because it showed-up in the edit history. I watch changes not the current state. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, understood. I was just now tempted to remove that space in your comment........ Zenkai251 (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I see that the other editor doesn't seem to agree with your advice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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

I weighed-in on the PM article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but all I see is a comment above the secion I created that says that you need more details on the topic. I'm not really sure what your opinion is. Is there anything else you would like to say on the topic? (It's okay if you don't want to; don't feel that I am focing you to take part in the discussion) 174.7.90.110 (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Not sure why you created a new section when I had already started one, but that's not important. In short, I don't really care how it ends up looking and I'll let those who do discuss it. I just don't like vandalism or unexplained changes. I'll watch the discussion to make sure that editors don't impose page ownership, but otherwise, I'll be hands-off. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Once again, have a great spring! - Paul

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

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

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

Well this edit was uncharacteristically childish: "I will answer yours just as soon as you answer mine." I felt like I was in elementary school again. But it seems that he is pushing his point, as are you, rather than trying to reach consensus. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with him is, you need to nail him down or consensus simply cannot be achieved. A couple years ago at Talk:Commonwealth realm I had to ask him over thirty times for a reference for what he was claiming, before he finally admitted there wasn't one. That finally allowed consensus to be achieved--if you don't force him to provide a source, he just keeps arguing and arguing and obstructing the process. This is what he's been doing on Wikipedia for years, and has somehow managed to evade getting permanently blocked for it by always maintaining a veneer of politeness on top of his outright lies and distortions of sources. And FYI, that line was not 'uncharacteristically' childish; it is absolutely his usual MO. → ROUX ₪ 19:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

WP:OVERLINK "Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions." You tell me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification -- i.e no-linking to countries or constituent countries. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Dear Gorlitz,

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

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

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

Hi Walter Shalom & God Bless you,

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your input and response

Love & Peace in Jesus name

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not hinting or stating anything here. Is there an article where I made a comment about this? I've done so on a number of occasions where a Basque flag has been added to a football player article when the player is Spanish, but I appear to have done so to one you edited as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• The same was done in Real Zaragoza's squad, in Ángel Lafita ("now" Aragonese)... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't watch that article so I don't know why I would change it. Feel free to make the change yourself. But back to the point, when you say "the same was done" it implies that it was done somewhere else, and I infer from that that I commented on that somewhere. So unless you can point me to that first instance, I'm not quite sure how I've offended you or why my comment would be considered offensive. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Again, misunderstood when i was only trying TO HELP :( Offended me? You have not offended me, not here nor ever. I was only saying, relating to this sentence you wrote above "but until they are a separate nation, they are Spanish first", that i assumed Mr. Oakley had already done this in other articles, that was all, hence i said he did THE SAME in Real Zaragoza's article; the change has already been done by me, i also did not infer you had to revert it.

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

• You have no further comments to make after i cleared the misunderstanding that "arose" from my original message? Also, to further clear any doubts you might have, i found this message you duly sent user Oakley regarding players' nationalities (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oakley77#Re:_Xabi_Alonso.27s_Nationality) --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

• I have already "heard" from him, continues to add autonomic community flags in club squads, now in Fortuna Düsseldorf and Arameiska-Syrianska Botkyrka IF, i have reverted both. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Good question. I'd ask on the overlink article's talk page, but if is the lede, I would personally avoid that change. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you & Ghmyrtle, need to compare notes. See my talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to join in a discussion with others at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. I'm sure you know, however, that the real issue is to do with GoodDay's editing behaviour - it's unsurprising that he creates dissension when he is editing on the site non-stop for 18-20 hours every day, across thousands of articles! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not fair, Ghmyrtle. GoodDay (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It's quite fair, but I'll strike it if you prefer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You should strike it, please. GoodDay (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No prob. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

;) GoodDay (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Just "Canadian". Tony (talk) 12:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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

I don't think I am. I have a difficult time on the Billboard site and don't know where else to look. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Me neither. BTW, the blog post was linked to from Skillet's web site so I would say it is reliable enough. Calabe1992 19:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Bingo. I'll update it here. Calabe1992 19:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Walter,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Walter:

What counts as a reliable source

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

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

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

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

The official broadcast is fine. Reference it, but it has to be verified. Can it be verified? No. It's not a WP:RS. As I state on your talk page, a printed roster from the match would be adequate. Several teams have provided rosters, with player numbers, for their pre-season matches. In short, live broadcasts are not RS, but if there's a free archive of it, it can be referenced. However, you're not referencing it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

how can it not be verified? any person can/could watch the broadcast and see the same numbers and players as i did. that you and others chose not to is not the issue ... it isn't "not verifiable" it is that you do not wish to verify it using the same reliable source that i did. those are not the same thing.173.165.207.241 (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Just read the policy and stop arguing about the policy with me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

i did read the policy ... word for word ... and my source is considered a reliable source per the written rules. verifiable only means that it comes from a reliable source ... it says nothing about how easy that verification must be ... there is ZERO reference to it having to be written word or on the web for it to be verifiable ... it only says the information must have come from a reliable source that was available to others in "SOME FORM" ... a broadcast is "available to others in SOME FORM" ... not to mention your version of the numbers is wrong by your own rules anyway since there are only 4 players with numbers on the montreal impact website.173.165.207.241 (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Red it again. Focus on "However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources." It's near the top. As such, this source is not reliable. You can always search the archived talk where the point is made that a live broadcast is not a RS as it's not published. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

whatever dude. you know nothing about MLS as proven by your idiotic contribution to the Whitecaps MLS page fiasco. you didn't even follow your own rules when you undid my edits and did your own ... i had to fix them so it actually reflected what was on the impact website since you have your panties in a bunch about that being the only valid source of information. if you want the page to have less information than what is out in the public sphere than that is on you ... i don't really care i was just trying to be helpful since the impact were being so lazy. eventually they will update their page and you will see i was right about the numbers.173.165.207.241 (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I know a lot about the MLS thanks. And the edits I restored were the state prior to your edits. They have not been vetted, so thanks for checking them. It's not just the Impact. It's the MLS. That page is driven from data on the MLS site. I don't doubt that you're right about the numbers, you're just not right about policy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that the roster has been updated, all of five calendar days later, your roster numbers were more-or-less correct. However, that's not the point. WP:RS was the point. Perhaps you'll take a look at the policy and perhaps you'll understand. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

You install Wikipedia:Twinkle or similar. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I tried installing Twinkle, but it didn't work. Is there any other way? Allen (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There are a few other tools, but I can't remember their names. Sorry. Try asking on the Twinkle page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups might do the trick for you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

What does "Navigation popups" have to do with rollback? Allen (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It allows "one-click revert". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

How in the world does someone do a "one-click revert" with "Navigation popups"? As far as I know, the only thing it is used for is a preview of a link without clicking on it. Allen (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

According to the instructions: File:Revert_popups.jpg it's done in the view history. You can preview the changes there without doing a diff and revert from there as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand how that can be done. Allen (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

It's incorrect and will be removed by several scripts that monitor for correctness. Cheers. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Why do you say it's incorrect? It's part of the standard. I can understand bots removing it to avoid transmitting extra bytes, but there are situations (like this one) where the default is useful as an explicit value. It ought to be possible to tell the bots to keep their paws off. -- Elphion (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. I should not have said incorrect, but the bots physically remove it and it causes more data to be transmitted during the edit. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Hello Walter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Walter Görlitz/Archived Talk to 2012-04: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

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

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Walter Görlitz/Archived Talk to 2012-04: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

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

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

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

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

Hi there WALTER, VASCO here,

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

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

Ah, you have already reverted me. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, can you clear my doubts about OVERLINKING please? --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Check WP:OVERLINK. What you state is WP:REPEATLINK (more than once in an article). While overlinking is linking to

*Avoid linking plain English words.

*Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, religions, and common professions.

and other items. I would argue that if the city is linked, beside it, it will carry a link to the country. However, that's my opinion and you should see the rest of the guideline. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks for all work you've done to EU2012.

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

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

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

Thanks for closing the debate on the talk page. I think that after having this same discussion happen year after year, we realize we all have better things to do than argue about the same thing year after year. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 20:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

This is the source [7]

Cheers!

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

No. But you can. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You might want to consider adding a request on the article's talk page rather than mine. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

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

Accept reason:

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

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

WP:Administrators:

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

WP:Edit war

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

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

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

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

Walter, I only monitor the article for problem edits. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you had not seen the timeline of events (phrase was added, I removed less than 30min later). You then re-added the same phrase two additional times, even after I opened the discussion with you. Edit-warring is edit-warring, and I'm not involved otherwise (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I too monitor the article for problem edits. But there was no problem and I have shown on the talk page. So undo the block as you can see I was discussing in the correct place, the article's talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If your first action is to revert your latest reversion on the article until there is WP:CONSENSUS to include the phrase that was added this morning, then YES, I will consider that the project no longer has need for protection from edit-warring and will unblock you (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hang on! That was not my first action. You have misrepresented the facts. Look at my edit history. I removed your comment here, I moved it to the article, were I believe the discussion belongs, and I responded. While I was doing that you got angry at me here again and reverted. You are as much to blame for this as I am. You hid the discussion on an editor's talk page rather than the article's and then you get into an edit war over something that I have shown to be a correct addition. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what I said (once again). If you promise that your first action after being unblocked will be to self-revert your most recent edit on the article, then yes, I will believe that you are following the attempt to gain consensus properly. Then, discussion can take place as to whether there is consensus to add that sentence. Right now we have this:

An IP added a sentence this morning.

I removed it as unsourced OR

You reverted me

As new consensus to add had not been obtained, I removed it

You reverted again.

Meanwhile, I started the discussion on your talkpage to ensure you realized where step 1 and step 2 were. I honestly believe you are still not fully aware of the sequence of events, especially based on your edit-summaries and actions so far in this. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I won't revert because that would put me at WP:3RR's bright line. I will continue to discuss. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No. Self-reverts do not ever count towards 3RR. Besides, you're already blocked for edit-warring ... this is you proving you believe in discussion as opposed to blind reverting (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

To answer your first question, yes, I will discuss and not make any changes to the article.

To address your incorrect timeline.

1. Anon added statement
2. You reverted
3. I restored
4. You added comment here
5. You reverted
6. I removed comment here
7. I added comment to article's talk page.
8. While I was doing that but before the edit was completed, you responded here
9. I left TB template on your article
10. You reverted at article (probably at the same time
11. I reverted at article.
12. I found myself blocked by an admin

Anything I'm missing? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the above for now, you still have not responded to the most important part here: if you are willing to self-revert on the article immediately after being unblocked, then I will unblock you ... now, as promised. Otherwise, it's clear that you were blindly reverting, and not interested in the discussion portion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No you're ignoring the most important part: you abused your power and you're misrepresenting the facts:

2012-04-10T16:02:38 (diff | hist) . . (+1,217)‎ . . Talk:2011 Stanley Cup playoffs ‎ (moving from my talk page and responding)

2012-04-10T16:09:54 (diff | hist) . . (+26)‎ . . 2011 Stanley Cup playoffs ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Bwilkins (talk): Please see talk page. (TW)) (top)

Which of those happened first, the discussion or the restoration of correct material? Oh you hadn't actually looked.

To answer your question directly, I do not plan to self-revert because it's a good edit and I plan to add http://www.nhl.com/ice/recap.htm?id=2010030325 as a reference. It will either happen in the next 23 hours or after or when someone else steps in at the article and fixes it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Walter, I've unblocked you, however, that section heading you just added was not necessary, and I've reverted it. Understand that you're getting given a chance here, but if you continue like this you will be re-blocked. I've warned you about your edit warring in the past, and left that incident with the impression that you could be trusted to not blindly edit war again and to instead discuss civilly on the talkpage. Please don't prove me wrong about that. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you for changing it. I was debating coming back after adding the reference and changing it to April 2012. Thanks again. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yes. Already commented on your page and I'm undoing my change. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Out of curiosity, are you interested in the Paraguayan War or were you merely doing maintenance work? --Lecen (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. My father was Paraguayan and my siblings are Argentinian. I have an interest in the mate article and so it's on my watchlist and I saw the series of changes there. I didn't even know about it before this series of changes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I asked because I'm interested on bringing the article to Featured level and I would like to receive everyone who likes the subject to share their thoughts about it. --Lecen (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Not enough time. Running late now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. Thank you anyway. It was goot to meet you. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

It hasn't been a discussion for a while, it's mostly just repacking of sound bytes, but thanks for the support. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Dag nab it, that Hail to the Chief example has pulled me back into the Template discussion & caused me to re-open the Infobox at Canada discussion. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Hi Walter,

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

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

Thanks! Gbegic (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see personal attacks or threats. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

And for the record, I think it was premature to redirect the page to the band's page as the subject meets WP:BAND. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

No, because it's true. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

How is that assuming good faith? I know you are frustrated, but I would suggest that it is better to leave the field than add to a toxic editing environment. Sunray (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Miesianiacal's reserves of good faith owed were tapped out probably two name changes ago. Why he has changed his name so many times (and not, it is worth noting, via WP:CHU) is an exercise best left up to the reader. Familiarize yourself with his history before you start castigating those of us who have spent years being browbeaten, bullied, and wikilawyered by this POV-pusher. Who, I should add, was actually blocked for a not-insignificant period of time a while back for harassing me. → ROUX ₪ 07:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)