User talk:Walter Görlitz

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

Happy new year[edit]

Hi Walter, I just want to wish you a happy new year! Happy editing!! Cheers! MbahGondrong (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

2003 FIFA Women's World Cup[edit]

Hi Walter!

Do you think you could help me with the kick-off times for the 2003 FIFA Women's World Cup games? You see, I have only added the times that FIFA has listed, but I have a feeling they are inaccurate, since each city/state in the United States use a different time zone. For instance, some of the times from the 1994 FIFA World Cup group stage articles are listed differently, i.e. Colombia–Romania, Group A, 19:30 on FIFA, 16:30 on Wikipedia, United States–Colombia, 19:30 on FIFA, 16:30 on Wikipedia etc. (I hope you understand what I'm referring to). I would like to do it myself, but I'm not an expert when it comes to time zones. (Since you speak Canadian English, I assume you live in Canada?) Arbero (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is. The times in the article are local times and it appears that's what the official FIFA reports are using as well. How can I assist? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you see the note "All times local (EDT/UTC–4, CDT/UTC–5, PDT/UTC–7)" listed below the table on the 1994 FIFA World Cup Group A page? I want to use a similar note like this for the 2003 FIFA Women's World Cup matches, but unfortunately I don't know what kind of time zones Carson, CA, Columbus, OH, Foxborough, MA, Philadelphia, PA, Portland, OR and Washington, DC. use. (Eastern Time Zone or Pacific Time Zone?) If I knew, I would have changed it myself from the local times. Arbero (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
OK. I understand now.
I hope that helps. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Yup, that's what I meant. Cheers. Arbero (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bet (short story)[edit]

Hi Walter,

The Bet story has a duplicate occurrence of "ponders over scriptures" in the text. I removed one from the text to correct it, but that change was reverted. Is that duplication required?

Thanks,

Shirish

All right, God bless you![edit]

All right, Walter! I hope you are blessed through the ministry Diante do Trono of Brazil. :D --200.158.2.76 (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

End of Silence - Red album[edit]

You may be right, and rules are rules, but for the record, it's probably more metal than rock.

Delete this part at any time. I will feud no longer with you. Have a nice day :) DannyMusicEditor (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Randall Goodgame[edit]

In response to the {{notability}} tag you placed on Randall Goodgame, I have added some content I found in Newsbank and on Highbeam. Please see if this addresses your concern about notability and if so, please remove the tag. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The number of sources is good. The quality is not. It's all local local papers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:BAND, notability may be demonstrated by having been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." The guideline explicitly includes newspapers and nowhere specifically or implicitly excludes local newspapers. Why do you consider these sources to be of low quality? It isn't like St. Petersburg, FL – just one of the local papers used – is Po-dunk, USA. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
They're low-quality in that they're local pieces. That guidelines doesn't specifically state that only local coverage isn't permitted. There was once such a guideline (or essay or something) but I haven't seen it in several years. Some of it is discussed at Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. The question isn't whether Goodgame is notable, I believe he is, it's whether the article reflected the subject's notability at the time that I placed the template in the article or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, but if you now believe he is notable, could you please remove the template questioning his notability? The article has changed significantly since you added it. Basically, I just want to make sure the notability concerns have been addressed and that the article is no longer being considered for deletion. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Universe Sandbox ²[edit]

I see you added a template there on notability. Where do I have to provide the sources? I mean, where Tetra quark (don't be shy) 23:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

In the article. I looked for sources and couldn't find any so best of luck. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Right. Well, I have a link to that game on a steam page. The thing is that the game is still under development. In future, there definitely will be links and secondary sources about it. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 04:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Right. Well you should hurry. I will be nominating the article for deletion in about a week's time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't do it, man. The game hasn't been released yet, but pretty much like the first version, it will be mentioned on several gaming websites and in other places. Right now, all I can find is the steam page of the game. I think we just should wait a little more. Tetra quark (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
You're missing the point. Notability is the criteria for every article on Wikipedia. If a subject isn't yet notable we can move the existing content to a user's space or just delete it. We don't create articles just in case something becomes notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Fine, mark it for deletion then. I just don't want to lose the images I uploaded for fair use. Couldn't we move them to the Universe Sandbox article? Tetra quark (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
You could simply merge the content to that article, including images, and when it's released and gains notability, split the article back out. I can show you how to do that correctly if you want, or, you can try on your own and I can clean-up if you make any mistakes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'll give it a shot. Tetra quark (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You seem to have moved the content but left the article. I placed the redirect. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Coastal Cup[edit]

Hey Walter I have a question. Beginning this upcoming NASL season the Coastal Cup (est. 2010) appears to be expanding to include the new Jacksonville Armada.http://www.rowdiessoccer.com/news/detail/uuid/qutwuhnlt7hf1itr4kpr7spdf/nasl-releases-2015-fall-season-schedule#.VMKMJoWAeto Until now it had been strictly a Strikers-Rowdies affair. As such, I just linked it to the larger Florida Derby page. Should I just leave it as is or should the Coastal Cup get its own page in the near future because of the addition of a 3rd team? Thanks for your thoughts in advance. -Creativewill (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It would make sense to move it to a Costal Cup article, but they may have a different opinion at WP:FOOTY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion RE the US Soccer Leagues[edit]

I'm letting you know that there has been a discussion regarding the US Pyramid: Talk:United States soccer league system#ASL's place in the pyramid. I probably stepped in it by adding ASL without researching that league at all; however, the broader discussion of how to order the leagues that are not sanctioned by USSF is also being included. Would love to hear input from frequent editors of the lower division league and club pages. Thx

Grandare Grande[edit]

Thanks, blocked and tagged. GiantSnowman 20:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Template_talk:Christianity#Once_again:_JWs_and_LDS[edit]

Regarding your comments at Template_talk:Christianity, could you please post a form of them at the Topic list here, so that the two different tempates (see Template:Christianity footer stay similar, and so that any WP:CON will be easier to form and verify. Thank you. tahc chat 22:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

why would you ping me on my own talk page?
Because you have not posted your propossal at the Topic list here-- and I don't know why.
-- and because you have not said why-- and I also don't know why you haven't said why. tahc chat 16:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I have no need to discuss it there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
If you want something different at one template than the other why won't you give a reason for that? tahc chat 18:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The other discussion doesn't seem to be about the template. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The which links have always followed the Topic list on this page as it says many places. The talk page (for years) has only been where to put the the links and what images to use. Never which links to use.
  • If you mean this this "other discussion" then that is only because neither you nor anyone else has joined it the discussion yet.
  • If you are now claiming that the straw poll was humor, then all of your comments are suspect. Please let me know if you really want to accomplish anything real. tahc chat 19:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

War of Ages[edit]

How does Metal Hammer fail RS? It's a professional magazine/website used as a source in a lot of articles. Also looking through the article's history, metalcore seems to have been the established genre for a while, before being changed without explanation or source fairly recently. If you disagree with me on adding it to the genres, I suggest you listen to some songs by the band. I couldn't find a more reliable source for this upon a quick Google search, but I'm sure there are reliable sources for it out there, considering the band's similarity to As I Lay Dying or All That Remains etc.--MASHAUNIX 05:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The author is listed. That's a plus. The site does not list its editorial process. That's a minus. The site does not indicate which editors are paid staff and which are user contributed. That's a minus. The site doesn't indicate who the managing editor is. That's a big fail. The problem is that review could be user-supplied and added without fact-checking. I like it, but it still fails RS. You could request that other comment at WP:RSN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for explaining that. However, do you not agree that metalcore should be given the benefit of the doubt in this instance? If you compare War of Ages' music with that of some other bands such as those I've mentioned, who have firmly been established as metalcore, the similarities are striking. And the current genre, Christian metal, is not sourced at all and, as I've said, has only been added to the article to replace metalcore rather recently.--MASHAUNIX 05:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a reliable source either. My opinion is immaterial. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Well your opinion obviously isn't immaterial, since you reverted my edit rather and judged that "Christian metal" was a better genre for the band than "metalcore", even though there's no reliable source for that either.--MASHAUNIX 07:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
It's an opinion. See WP:BRD. You make an edit based on specific reasons. Another editor, for other reasons, decides to revert it. That's when discussion starts. Feel free to take it to RSN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what article context this is from, but Metal Hammer is solidly an RS (it's a classic magazine), and is list on the reliable source list at the Albums WikiProject.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Kit Carson[edit]

The Kit Carson article was sent to GA nominations a day ro two ago. Sweeping changes to the text (like replacing infoboxes) cannot be allowed at this stage at the risk of "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute". Take your suggestions for changes to the talk page and gather some consensus. SeeSpot Run (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You sent to GA after I reverted. And it has to be reverted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I am the principal editor on this article. You need concensus for your wanton reverts, so take it to the talk page. Gather some consensus. Don't tell me "It must be done!" Please do not revert the infobox. You are allowed three reverts. You've had them. Your name and a description of the sacking and destruction you are wrecking to the article have been reported to the admins' noticeboard. It is hoped that you will be stopped in your tracks before further damage is done to the project. SeeSpot Run (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

See WP:OWN and WP:CONSENSUS. Then see WP:3RR. Your opinion that I am sacking and destroying the article is noted. I feel the same way about your edits to the article and it is hoped that you will stop thinking you can edit the way you want when you lay claim to an article. This isn't the wild west. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
My revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kit_Carson&diff=644506789&oldid=644452661 04:14, 28 January 2015
You reverted without explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kit_Carson&diff=644578661&oldid=644506789 17:27, 28 January 2015
Your GA nomination: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kit_Carson&diff=644579781&oldid=644579069 17:37, 28 January 2015
I reverted and requested discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kit_Carson&diff=644584119&oldid=644578661 18:15, 28 January 2015
So far the discussion has been against excluding. I'm not sure why you feel the need to impose your opinion on the article.
It is my opinion that you should have addressed the revert before the GA nomination, not as an afterthought and use GA as an excuse. As for GA nomination putting it into some special state where it cannot be changed, that's not in any way rational. If there are problems with the article that preclude it from achieving GA, which I claim this to be, then it should be fixed. An edit war will not help to achieve GA. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Mate[edit]

In brief, Mate is a traditional South American beverage. Syria and Lebanon are simply West Asian consumers, thus should not be mentioned in the lead. Syria and Lebanon are already covered in the Variants section. Indigenous American (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC) I'm glad that you and your friend resolved it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Thanks for all of your helpful edits on Christian Music (and related articles) to keep everything up-to-date and accurate! bojo1498 talk 19:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Some falafel for you![edit]

Falafel award.png My apologies on behalf of the rest of Am Yisrael for that fellow's ignorant behaviour. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16 Shevat 5775 20:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Zao (American Band)[edit]

Hi Walter, I just was looking on Zao's page and noticed much of it has been deleted. I think that would qualify as vandalism, wouldn't it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalworker14 (talkcontribs) 19:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

If you mean this edit, then no. Wikipedia:Vandalism states that it is "is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia."
If you compare that to the policy on verifiability that states, "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Nothing I removed was referenced, and there was a lot of it. I didn't compromise the integrity of Wikipedia by removing the unreferenced material. I did debate whether I should simply mark it as needing references and remove it in say six months if it didn't get any, or remove it outright...well you saw the road I took. The fact that it was also explained helps a great deal in identifying it as not being vandalism, although some editors do obfuscate their unconstructive actions with edit summaries that look to be legitimate. Do you think I should restore it and tag it instead? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalworker14 (talkcontribs) 16:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Assistance requested on BridgeCity (album) deletion discussion[edit]

Walter,

If I could get your assistance and review of the article BridgeCity. It's up for deletion and I need some unbiased help.

They say the article cites no credible sources when it has a professional review from New Release Tuesday and two separate new-source articles from Jesus Freak Hideout. They claim these aren't valid.

If I could gain your support (or non-support if you see there point), it would be greatly appreciated.

Blessings, RhettGedies (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The NRT review is a user review, not a staff review.
There is no staff review at JFH only press releases from TKO Marketing. I don't think it does meet notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Walter, If you could look into this, I'd really appricate it. The article was deleted with a Mod stating the consensus was delete. However, the vote was 2 in favor of keeping vs. one "delete". Why did that happen?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BridgeCity (album)

RhettGedies (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

AfDs are not about voting, they're about determining who is making the best policy- and guideline-based arguments. The fact the JFH link is a press release means it's not independent of the subject.
NRT's review of Christ Be Glorified is by a staff reviewer, but the self-titled entry is not a review and doesn't help meet notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox flags[edit]

Walter, I've seen your many edits, and you're a well respected editor. Please join in the discussion about infobox flags. We're all wasting too much of our wiki time warring over these silly things. Your input, either for or against, would be welcomed and appreciated. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about the well-respected part, but I did leave a comment. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

User:SveinFalk ANI[edit]

Given your involvement in the last ANI regarding User:SveinFalk, I'd appreciate your input at WP:ANI#Comments by SveinFalk. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Pseudo Headings[edit]

In regards to this edit, can you point out specifically where on MOS:HEADINGS it suggests using bold text or a semi-colon is okay for section headings? This directly contradicts how both WP:ACCESS and H:DL say this can be used: "Do not use a semicolon (;) simply to bold a line without defining a value using a colon (:). This usage renders invalid HTML5 and creates issues with screen readers." Fezmar9 (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC) I'm sorry I missed your point, we should not be creating "invalid HTML5", but you have clearly missed mine:

I'm sorry I missed your point, we should not be creating "invalid HTML5", but you have clearly missed mine:
From MOS:HEADINGS
"Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings"
From WP:BODY
"Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose."
Further down that MoS: MOS:PARAGRAPHS
"The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points."
I would argue the solution to both problems is to replace the bulleted items with colons as the accessibility guideline stipulates.
Incidentally, there's a discussion going on about this and with your help I may have come upon a good solution. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Could you link me to said discussion? Fezmar9 (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Band articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Rafinha page .[edit]

it indicates clearly in Barca official website man it is March

http://www.fcbarcelona.com/football/first-team/staff/players/rafinha_alcantara

thank you

Adnan (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


  • ok according to his instagram he celebrated birthday on Feb 12 i think barca's website is wrong then..

http://instagram.com/rafinhaaa93/

Adnan (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Please also take a look at Marc-André ter Stegen where editor has been edit warring, just like previuosly at Nemanja Matić a few days ago. QED237 (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. Barcelona, as usual, are likely wrong. There were multiple sources that supported Feb. 12.
  2. I'm surprised you have not been blocked. Going far past three reverts, against three different editors, with intent, and yet you're still editing.
  3. You're the one edit warring.
  4. Please read WP:CONSENSUS.
If you have any further issues, feel free to discuss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Gianlikestodraw[edit]

I noticed you reverted several edits by this person. I've noticed a disturbing pattern of creating articles with no references or references that are bogus. Several articles they say a song has charted on Billboard, but there is no mention at Billboard. It also appears they are removing referenced material. I'm about done for awhile and will check more on this later. Bgwhite (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

XHTML breaks[edit]

Hello. I am noting your disagreement with the cleanups involving converting <br> to <br /> AWB doesn't do that with its basic configuration. It is an added find/replace cleanup I do when there are other more critical cleanups to do -- they "tag along" for the ride, so to speak. You have suggested that these are "deprecated" for use in the Wikipedia. Can you help me understand this better by pointing to a guideline or community discussion where this decision/agreement has been made? If so, I will carefully consider it and amend my cleaning process if it merits doing that. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 15:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

No guideline or consensus, but they were introduced to support the "upcoming standard" of XHTML, but the new upcoming standard is HTML5, and it's not part of that standard. XHTML has been abandoned. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, but I will need to see a guideline or community discussion about this to help me make up my mind. As you know, HTML5 is a new standard but not applicable to all browsers currently in use. Further, XHTML5 is in development and the idea that "XHTML has been abandoned" is one held by some but not all web developers. I will need to see a "wiki-consensus" on their use or non-use. As for why I make the change, it's because it makes line breaks more obvious to the editor and makes the tag look similar to other wiki HTML-like constructs. I will certainly bend to any consensus on this, however. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 15:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Fine. Create one. I will continue to remove XHTML breaks since they're not a standard anywhere. XHTML was never fully implemented. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to remove them (they are a minor part of my cleanups anyway). At the same time, they will remain a part of my cleanups until I see a consensus against them. As one who has done web development, I will have to say I disagree that XHTML was never fully implemented. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 15:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Show me one browser that will incorrectly display a correct break that has also implemented XHTML and I'll agree with you. XHTML may have been included as an encoding format, but its goal was to make all other HTML formats obsolete and so it was not fully implemented. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I will disagree on your definition of what makes something "fully implemented". That it exists and that various web development efforts seek to conform to it as a standard makes it fully implemented to me. Also, it has not been abandoned as XHTML5 continues to exist. But the issue here is whether there's a consensus against the particular change that I make. So far, only one person has objected to these changes. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 15:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I see your point. Please excuse my incorrect use of the term. It may be fully implemented, but a browser uses many standards to render a page.
Now allow me to correct you. Just because you've only seen me objecting doesn't mean only one person objects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The Vespers[edit]

I would like to remove the speedy deletion template from The Vespers article. I've cited my reasons on their Talk page. Absent objections, I plan to remove the template in two weeks, around March 1. Thank you. Allreet (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Aron Jóhannsson[edit]

This isn't the first time we've had to deal with all these dual nationality claims, but we have another one on Aron Jóhannsson's talk page. Might want to check it out. – Michael (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Death Machine (EP)[edit]

Hello Walter, a page I created, called Death Machine (EP) was redirected. Even thought I had a reference. I have no idea why it was redirected. could you help me get it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalworker14 (talkcontribs) 00:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The link to the reference was bad. I just searched now and eventually found that the link should have been http://www.bandsonfire.com/resources/release-presentations/article/living-sacrifice-death-machine instead. The site isn't particularly notable and fails RS. That three-paragraph review is written by "Bruce LS". The staff are listed at http://www.bandsonfire.com/about/article/the-people-behind and Bruce LS isn't there. So it's not a staff review. So now that review has two strikes against it.
WP:GNG indicates that a subject can be presumed to be notable if it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". We have
  • a short piece, not significant coverage
  • one source, not multiple sources
  • With the LS at the end of the reviewer's name, it doesn't appear that the review is independent of the subject and has something to do with Living Sacrifice
I may have acted too soon and you were still adding important sources, but I suspect that this one review was it as the article has been in-place for three weeks and the album was released more than six years ago so now new reviews will be appearing any time soon. Sorry if I'm wrong. If you want to revert my edit, I can take the article to AfD instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That would be great, thank you. Metalworker14 (talk)

OK. When you revert my changing to the redirect, I'll do the AfD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

How do you do that? Metalworker14 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

How do I nominate for AfD? I use a tool that does the work for me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No. How do you revert changing to redirect? Metalworker14 (talk) 6:58, 28 February 2015

You go to the page's history. Click the prev link next to the change. Undo the change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Soul Embraced[edit]

Hello Walter, Me again. I've been doing research on Soul Embraced, and it seems that bassist Jon Dunn is still in the band. Just wanted to tell you, so you could figure it out. Thank You. Metalworker14 (talk)

OK. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Paul Ritchie[edit]

Dear Walter, Thank you for your message. Paul and I were friends and played football together. We attended the same schools and he lived about 500m from me. He also worked for the same company as me at one point. Paul is a year older than me and I was born in 1970. I'm sure he'll be flattered that you say he was born in '75. If you look at the class photo on this link, you'll see that he was in Primary 6 in 1980. P6 in Scotland is age 11. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Paul-Ritchie-footballer-born-1975/276195385912982?rf=104113932957267 Regards, Alan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpineclubofscotland (talkcontribs) 18:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

OK. The only problem is the article has a reference to a reliable source that supports his birth year and the article is at that location as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not clear to me[edit]

Yes, that particular talk page post was rambling and from my small amount of research the person who probably posted that screed seems..."interesting"? but anyway, it is not clear to me that the website cited in Meyers' article is indeed her website. All it does is provide links to buy her album on Amazon and to buy her music on iTunes. There is no text provided, no fan news, no music news, no contact info, no agent address/phone #, no tour info, no publicist, etc. My thought is that even if it is perhaps her website (which is actually unclear to me), why should Wikipedia serve as a conduit for folks to just buy her music? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It's still her official website and it was only removed from the infobox, not the EL section. It's been her website for more than five years and still has information related to the subject. Now that I understand the situation without rambling I could be convinced to remove it completely, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Will You (P.O.D. song)[edit]

It's what they intended it to be. Cited as a Christian band, makes sense to call it christian metal or at least christian rock due to the single cover. And yes, I forgot to correctly capitalize it. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Bumps Inf[edit]

Help me.The Cross Bearer (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I suspect you mean with [1] this edit. The subsequent edit resolved it. As you continue to add articles about subjects who are less and less important to the genre, you'll run into this more often. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Meine Erfahrungen mit der deutschen Wikipedia[edit]

Ich habe lange bei der deutschen Wikipedia mitgearbeitet, bis ich dort frustriert aufgehört habe. Dort herrscht leider bei vielen ein wenig aufbauender Geist: Statt positiv mitzuarbeiten, wird hauptsächlich das, was andere machen, diskutiert und kritisiert, man löscht häufig, was andere schreiben. Statt Fehler zu verbessern, wird herumkritisiert, statt Inhalte zu schaffen, werden lange Diskussionen geführt. Ich habe mich dann irgendwann dazu entschieden, lieber in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia mitzuarbeiten, weil dort dieses - vielleicht typisch deutsche - Verhalten wesentlich seltener vorkommt. Manchmal frage ich mich, ob diejenigen, die wie oben beschreiben handeln, eigentlich wissen, wie destruktiv sich ihr Handeln manchmal auswirken kann.

Mit herzlichen Grüßen von Christ zu Christ

Metron (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand. Welcome to the project, and I hope your time here will be more enjoyable and profitable to both the project and your spirit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


Society's Finest[edit]

Hello, I was wondering why Society's Finest was nominated for deletion. I added a reference and it requires one.

Metalworker14 (talk)

It was explained in the AfD nomination: it fails WP:GNG. 05:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015[edit]

I see you inform me about my genre change on An Island and said that it conflicted with the neutral point of view and verifiability policies but it doesn't because the edit that changed the genre before https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Island&diff=643078369&oldid=642276793 has no source just like my edit. Also there is no source for the genre of the song so I don't understand how my edit is false over the edit that was not sourced or explained as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKruger13 (talkcontribs) 19:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I should blank the genre section completely. However, just because someone else does something wrong doesn't mean you can too. In short, was the genre you added supported with a reliable source or was it just that you know it was the right genre? If it was the former, I didn't see the source, maybe you could point me to it. If it was the latter, we've hit the nail on the head. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I found out someone did it after I did. The original was Alternative metal, hard rock[1] and I've been on the page before with the original genre and didn't do anything to do. Industrial metal didn't seem accurate so I just change it on my own but I'm still new to this site and naive about stuff so I didn't thought of going back and reverting it to the original one. I've seen you've been through other edit wars and I didn't want to start another one because its exhausting and pointless so do whatever you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKruger13 (talkcontribs) 15:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I happened to pick up on this. Why is Rockfreaks an unreliable source? DannyMusicEditor (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Until We Have Faces[edit]

It seems you are very involved with the Red project on Wikipedia. Since the last post on this album's talk page was over two years ago (by you) I thought I might get an important, well-known person's attention about this on their talk page, instead of potentially waiting for months and coming up with nothing- its talk page is very short and I've had experiences like that before. I have copied the following message from my post on the album's talk page, except for one word being changed.

Single notability

Most of the singles after "Faceless" and "Feed the Machine" are only notable because they charted. They consist of two sentences, a tracklist, and a chart. Being very short pages, I'm suggesting redirecting those ones to the album. I'd like to hear what everyone thinks. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

As said above, tell me what you think. They've (Lie to Me, Not Alone, and Buried Beneath) existed for an average of about 6 months months now and have almost nothing. I hope you can give advice, DannyMusicEditor (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw the edits you made to the singles (they're on my watchlist) and I agree with the edits. The charts do exist though, but simply charting isn't really enough to meet notability guidelines. The assumption is that charting albums and singles will cause RSes to write about them. If that does not happen, the article fails GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I think I found something that might save "Lie to Me" from being a redirect. I will write when I have more time. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)