User talk:Walter Görlitz

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

Three Days Grace[edit]

Sorry... still had more to say. This appears to be sourced yet you still reverted it. Surely you see what I'm getting at; I'm not trying to pester or belittle you, I merely want to justify this IP's actions and make it clear there was no wrongdoing. I also see that you issued the user a final warning. The concerned edit is of course not vandalism at all, but furthermore please understand 4im warnings are appropriate for severe cases of vandalism and defamation only. Thanks for your understanding. — MusikAnimal talk 14:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I see. You do understand that it was the lack of discussion and changing IPs. The former could be controlled. The latter may not be withing anon's control. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
And the source may meet WP:V, but certainly not RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Misunderstanding[edit]

Bro, I'm not being unconstructive, I'm just trying to help out. I asked you for support as to why the band belongs in the Christian Music portal since they are not Christian anymore.SkaterLife (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You didn't ask, you reverted a section that clearly belonged and left an edit summary. Only add or remove projects that you're a member of or that are obviously wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and in that edit summary I clearly said, can you give me a reference. Please double check before you accuse someone of being unconstructive.SkaterLife (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Using the edit summary is not discussing. Talk pages are discussing. Reading the article would have also answered your question. It's fine. You'll learn how to be a constructive editor eventually. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I apologize. I should have read through more clearly.SkaterLife (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Skillet singles (cont. from archive)[edit]

I found this on the forum boards of Skillet's website. It is not much for reliability as it is a forum, but is is a mention somewhere online of F&F being a single - this says relased in October. So iI say for now not necessarily cite this as it is a forum, but leave F&F on Wikipedia as a single, plus it has charted. http://skillet.com/boards/index.php?topic=22022.0 Hard to Find i think i will remove as a single cause I have found no such evidence like that about it being a single, plus it has not charted at all. Jacob102699 (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That's probably the best. It was released to Christian CHR formats, but without a charting source, it's not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I overhauled the Rise discography on Skillet discography with correct dates and chart info that was missing, and removed H2F. However there are some coding errors i guess and a few parts of the table are jacked up. I cant figure out what coding error I put in. Jacob102699 (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Nvm figured it out. Jacob102699 (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. I missed that part of the request. Glad you got it figured out. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

List of 2014 FIFA World Cup controversies[edit]

Hello! Could you run your WP:ENGVAR script on the List of 2014 FIFA World Cup controversies article, as well as the knockout stage article and the other group articles? Thanks in advance, Heymid (contribs) 21:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

A user's causing a problem[edit]

A user with the name Dan56, keeps reverting edits on the Unapologetic page, there are ones that provides sources that the album uses R&B, dubstep and pop and he keeps reverting the edits and tells the users that they will be blocked for persistent vandalism, genre warring, etc, I'm not the only one who has picked up on his behavior and quite frankly I think it is unfair and he is not really a good Wikipedian, can you please help? 14:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuvmeorHateme (talkcontribs)

It seems as though there was a poll on the talk page that was evenly split and the closing admin argued that consenus was weak toward excluding the genre. The real issue is that there is only one source to support that genre.
  1. Find another reliable source
  2. Add it to the music and lyrics section
  3. Re-open the discussion on the talk page with the new source, but expect optimism and skepticism.
There's no need to edit war. While I don't agree with Dan56's approach—the editor should be opening a new discussion when new editors not involved in the earlier consensus discussion want to change the consensus—the editor is mostly correct in stating that a consensus exists. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for getting back at me, I'll just do what you said; would you like an update? LuvmeorHateme (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I made a new discussion, can you have a look and see if it is OK please? LuvmeorHateme (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Considering that this user's complaint came soon after I had reverted the blocked @Lisa Bathgate:, who had been reverted and warned several times for edit/genre warring at articles like Unapologetic and A.K.A. (album), which LuvmeorHateme has also edited, I find this pretty dubious. It wouldn't be the first time either that socks tried to undermine this article's consensus (Talk:Unapologetic#Genre_change_poll). Dan56 (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
There are solutions if you think there's sock-puppetry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope you didn't mind when I commented the other day about the other matter. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Apologies[edit]

I just wanted to apologize in case I seemed at all defensive on the Hillsong articles. I was never trying to get in the way of your edits. I'm very new to the editing aspect of Wikipedia, and I generally have a hard time letting go. So you might understand why I tend to vote more in favor of keeping articles. Anyways, I just wanted to let you know that I did not intend to frustrate you in any way. I'd like to help out more with Christian Music articles in particular. I'm willing to learn the ropes. Jair Crawford (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You did seem defensive, but it's understandable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

How Great Is Our God[edit]

Hi, I want to bring your attention to this page. Talk:How Great Is Our God Thanks, The boss 1998 (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

question[edit]

Obi Wan, have you considered enabling email? SW3 5DL (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I have, but I have received personal threats twice, related to edits and blocks, and that is without it enabled, I don't think I want any more direct contact than that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that. I've had problems with the email being enabled. Just thought it might be helpful right now. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
OK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Turning album articles into redirects[edit]

Please advise You should retain categories and add {{R from album}} to album redirects. Cf. WP:ALBUM. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Notablity in comparison of issue tracking systems[edit]

For clarity sake can you please confirm if these products are notable or not: The Bug Genie, Teamwork and Axosoft. Thanks. —Jude Dread) — Preceding undated comment added 13:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I looked close at the references for The Bug Genie and it looks like it may not be sufficiently notable. I'll have to investigate more closely. No clue what Teamwork is. Axosoft has won some awards and so it meets notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

All I Can Say[edit]

I don't mean for this to become a contentious issue, but could you explain your edit here? The result of the first debate is stated as "no consensus". You nominated the first time and voted delete the second time, so it's obvious you're firmly in favor of this change, but it also puts your objectivity into question, considering your edit summary on the above. One merge vote the first time does not equal consensus. As the result of the second debate was "keep", I don't see how taking unilateral action to merge is appropriate here. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

First debate was me stating deleted and another saying merge. I'm not sure how Michig concluded that there was no consensus. And the recent discussion was that the material should be kept. All of that was honoured. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The first debate is practically irrelevant since there has been a second debate with a clearer result. And I wasn't aware that "keep" on an article deletion debate was interpreted as "merge". It might appear to an outside observer that you've chosen to interpret the debate in a way that is inconsistent with convention but happens to be more favorable to your position. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, but I'm having trouble assuming good faith here. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry I've caused you to break a pillar. All of the referenced information is present. the redirect was in-place. Nothing was lost in the merge except the album cover. I've self reverted, but don't believe that the article is in any way useful and have tagged it as such. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

question 2.0[edit]

What about that other thing. Did it go away, as well it should? SW3 5DL (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

If you mean the ANI, yes. It was archived without action.
If you mean the 3RR breach I reported, it too appears to have passed into the night without action.
If you mean me enabling email, I don't have any plans to do it, no.
Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I meant the ANI. Glad that went to archives. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


Profile Interface Question[edit]

I apologize if this may seem like a silly question, but, how did you get your category boxes all neatly in a column on your profile page? I'd like to try to do that with mine. Jair Crawford (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Not at all.
{| style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; width: 242px; border: #99B3FF solid 1px"
Then create each box as if it was a table entry then close it with a
|}
You can always edit the page to look at the "source". Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! How would I make them like table entries? Jair Crawford (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I edited your user page to incorporate. Feel free to revert or keep what you like. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a TON! It looks great! Jair Crawford (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

2002 FIFA World Cup[edit]

Regarding the capacities, I posted a reply earlier today. Let me know what your thoughts are. Arbero (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Rookie Blue (season 5)[edit]

I removed the American dates. Its already in the ratings section, so that's unnecessary duplication. Notice how the Canadian airdates and ratings aren't in that section. 66.87.81.16 (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw that and your comment on the talk page there. It looks good. I would left-justify the table and reserve center for the ratings and other numbers, but it's fine the way it is too. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


Citing sources for a band's genre is best done in a section that discusses the band's style. The section should reference any genres. Vague references are frowned upon in these cases. Things like AllMusic's genre cloud, the list of genres without discussion about those genres, are not considered reliable sources as well. Alternately, and you'll see this in articles where editors don't have time to create a full section, you'll see the genres referenced in the infobox. That's not ideal since the infobox is supposed to summarize the prose of the article, not offer new material.
Similarly, a style and composition section for an album (or single) should discuss the genres for that album (or single), but you'll see infoboxes often containing referenced genres.
The genre warrior essay describes the behaviour of a genre warrior as one who goes to multiple articles and changes the genres listed there, usually without support and generally without explaining why. It's not like an edit war where it changes frequently. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

August Burns Red genre[edit]

Where do I cite my sources?

August Burns Red are Progressive Metal because their album "Rescue and Restore" is described as Progressive Metal in it's respective Wikipedia article. Also, further down in the ABR article it is said that ABR can be labelled "Melodic Metalcore" so it seemed sensible to put it there. I was thinking about putting "Experimental Metal" in there too, because guitarist JB Brubaker does mention in interviews - and in the band's website bio - that the band are experimenting with different musical... Things.

Though you are correct - I cited no sources. I probably won't bother going back to it. I'm not good with stuff like this, but maybe even you could change the genre? I saw that you're interested in helping with Christian music articles and this is one article that I'm particularly interested in. It would be a favour.

P.S. I'm not a genre Warrior. Almost. As in, I'm not going to go and change it all back.Lokky000 (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Citing sources for a band's genre is best done in a section that discusses the band's style. The section should reference any genres. Vague references are frowned upon in these cases. Things like AllMusic's genre cloud, the list of genres without discussion about those genres, are not considered reliable sources as well. Alternately, and you'll see this in articles where editors don't have time to create a full section, you'll see the genres referenced in the infobox. That's not ideal since the infobox is supposed to summarize the prose of the article, not offer new material.
Similarly, a style and composition section for an album (or single) should discuss the genres for that album (or single), but you'll see infoboxes often containing referenced genres.
The genre warrior essay describes the behaviour of a genre warrior as one who goes to multiple articles and changes the genres listed there, usually without support and generally without explaining why. It's not like an edit war where it changes frequently. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Canada Politics Infobox[edit]

Is it acceptable to use the coat of arms on the Template:Politics of Canada infobox? Someone appears to have added it recently. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Which one? The copyrighted one? No. There's no fair use rationale for it there nor can one be made. The approximation? Why would you use that anywhere, and why there in particular? There are no copyright limitations for its use there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

August Burns Red genre again[edit]

Ok, this is the second time someone has edited the ABR infobox and you've deleted their changes. Can I ask that if you're not happy with the way people are changing this, instead of just deleting it why don't you change it - properly - yourself. Lokky000 (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. Are the changes referenced? Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
And to be fair, I have reverted genre changes at that article that have been undiscussed and unsupported more than twice. And Please don't delete material that I've already responded to. You may delete whatever you want on your talk page, but you're not permitted to do so on other talk pages, particularly if someone else has already engaged. with it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Skillet singles[edit]

I'm not putting this on article talk pages because it has to do with several articles. I added singles to the older Skillet albums. And you reverted saying it is not supported. Everything I put was out of Skillet discography. I'm assuming it's correct, but the singles are not cited on there either. So if they are not supported to be put on album articles, then why are they supported on the discography page? Jacob102699 (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

There are no references to support the singles and they should at least be tagged with {{citation needed}} on the discography article. I couldn't do that in the infobox, which would have been my preference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Shapeshifter[edit]

It has been reviewed by About.com (Chad Bowar), Revolver and Substream Magazine.AdditionSubtraction (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Then add them rather than simply restoring the poorly referenced article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Aye Aye Captain, I fulfilled your orders.AdditionSubtraction (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Murdoch Mysteries References[edit]

You still haven't explained why out of 18 episodes, those four are special enough to need references. Also two of them are no good, which I keep telling you and you can't or won't see. Zap2it changed their website a few months ago, which means past/current links for episodes don't work anymore.

I've cut and pasted them here for you to see, since you are having trouble with that. Also, you can't use Zap2it for UK dates, it's an American website.

<ref name="zapit">{{cite web |url=http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/murdoch-mysteries/episode-guide/EP01014682 |title=TV Listings - Murdoch Mysteries: Episode Guide |work=Zap2it |publisher=Tribune Company |accessdate=February 16, 2014}}</ref>

<ref name="zapit">{{cite web |url=http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/murdoch-mysteries/EP01014682?aid=zap2it |title=TV Listings - Murdoch Mysteries |work=Zap2it |publisher=Tribune Company |accessdate=March 3, 2014}}{{dead link|date=May 2014}}</ref>

The second Zap2it reference, is shown beside the UK airdate for episode seven.

24.203.254.134 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why out of 18 episodes only four have references. They should all have references. Removing the few that do means that you're moving further away from the goal rather than closer to it. And I have explained that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Software Testing Edits[edit]

Before you reverts the changes I made to the Software Testing introduction, I ask that you explain in what way you see the previous content as better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atester (talkcontribs) 19:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you read my edit notice? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

In response to your message to me about Anberlin's new album[edit]

Walter, I was messaged about how an edit I made to the Anberlin album, Lowborn conflicted with Wikipedia's neutral standpoint. I changed the article to read "American rock band" instead of "Christian rock band" seeing as that's what they're categorized as on every other related article. If you take a look at the main article for Anberlin, you'll see that there's an entire section where the lead singer of the band, Stephen Christian, even says "I definitely don't classify us as a christian band."

This wasn't an edit I made out of spite or anger. The band has stated that they feel being labeled a christian band is a misrepresentation of their music and I hope this can be fixed.

2601:B:8F00:812:78BA:8D37:4BE6:45D3 (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't claim it was made out of spite or anger, but it was made.
I understand your concern and looking at the edit history of the article, the genres were added by the original editor. Neither the original edits nor the ones you're making are referenced. What the band wants is immaterial though. If they thought they were a disco-revival band, and critics thought that they were funk-fusion, we would have to rely on the critics if they were reliably sourced. Since there are no sources I think the best thing to do is remove the genres from the infobox and keep the lede the same as previous album articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Rookie Blue (season 5)[edit]

Hi, Walter. I removed the verification tag from Rookie Blue (season 5)'s episode section. Myself, I usually remove the airdate references after any new episode airs, regardless of the past date. As for the summaries, these are usually added by viewers of the episode after they air. It's borderline original research but usually accepted, unless inaccurate. If you still wish to know the Canadian airdates for season five, please see here. Thank you. — Wyliepedia 09:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not about me, it's about PW:RS and WP:V. I will be restoring the tags. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Then why not here, here, here, or here??? Or any of those listed at WP:TV's Featured Lists??? — Wyliepedia 13:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
You should tag them. I don't watch those articles and I don't police Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not tagging all those articles, since, as this post began, I don't have a problem with past titles/dates/summaries. What I should do is mention RBS5's tag at its talkpage and see who is against it. However, since 75% of the other editors to the page have 10 or less edits (and most are IPs), I don't really care. I just came here as a courtesy to tell you about the revert and am finished with this conversation, as well as RBS5's remainder. — Wyliepedia 13:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Kits and User:Rizky Iconia[edit]

Hi, this editor has refused warnings before and kept adding kits with logos. Then after your final warning in June he seemed to have stop but an IP wrote to him to stop again 4 August and now I saw today he has added kits with logos everywhere. Can you help me keep an eye on Rizky Iconia (talk · contribs) and perhaps tell him to stop (or report/block). QED237 (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm spending less time on Wikipedia these days. Perhaps the footy project will be able to offer support. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hypercorrection?[edit]

Hi I see you left me a message about reverting my change to Plautdietsch language with reference to the etymology of Dutch / Deutsch - I have reverted back and added a reference to the Etymological Dictionary - in English-native countries this is something like 'common knowledge' so I was surprised it was not referenced here as 'German' has an altogether different meaning and Latin etymology so is a little obfuscating and inaccurate (though I have left it in)- however I note that you did not remove all the other insubstantiated statements in the article, so I wondered why you singled my (correct) addition out? Were you to do so there would be very little left on the page...Truth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true; and she does not despise the jewel which she has rescued from the mud, but adds it to her former treasures 16:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenniu (talkcontribs)

While that may have been its origin, it doesn't carry that meaning today, but it's referenced so there's no need to remove it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Reflink[edit]

plz reflink Reza Ghoochannejhad--FutbalTeamha (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Please![edit]

I think you have preconceit, because all I do, you wanna revert, please stop revert! --200.153.219.196 (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I revert all bad edits, not because of bad editors. Please stop adding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:183.83.228.168, your comments regarding the edits I made[edit]

Yes I am new. The edit I made was to correct an error that the previous maker had made. the OP said a particular national park had Cheetahs, which have been extinct in the Indian Sub-continent for a while now. I then realized that the OP meant to say chital, but had used the spelling cheetal, which is perhaps wrong. I made the edit without logging in because I was in the middle of work and was lazy :P Er. I'm not sure I'm responding in the right way or anything. Forgive the newbieness. :) Thanks for the message. How should I have edited the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unwise fool (talkcontribs) 18:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the edit I warned you about. There's nothing about cheetahs, national parks or anything of the sort. I can excuse mistakes, but not deliberate damaging of articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

LA Galaxy[edit]

Don't need to reply just wanted to inform you that I was reverting an edit from a sockpuppet. I apologize for the error. GoPurple'nGold24 05:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)