User talk:Walter Görlitz/Archived Talk to 2010-10

Archives

Archive 1 2007-01-30

Archive 2 2010-03-31

Archive 3 2010-06-28

Plural wikilinks

Thanks for the note regarding the proper way to link plurals in wikilinks, as indicated on the edit history of Stryper. I appreciate the heads up. Every little bit helps. ;) Cindamuse (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

??

Hi there WALTER, VASCO from Portugal here,

Really did not understand your reaction at this discussion (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#User:Zombie433). The last sub-section which i added, was clearly of no use to the discussion, it was just written out of frustration, i admit it but:

1 - User:Zombie433's English is appalling, as other users have attested to (using this same word), as appalling as my German would be if i attempted to write coherent stuff in articles, so i don't edit in that WP. Also, his level of (lack of) cooperation is beyond this world, hence my frustration most of the times (his lack of cooperation is also addressed to in the discussion, nothing i am making up).

2 - You immediately jumped to his defense, with the counter-effect of attacking me (since you said "compared to the current structure, Zombie's edit is not bad", then emphasized some words, i assume the words in black are my errors, failed to see at least ONE therein). On a related note, why do you took ofense to the word "sold"? Yes, i am fully aware that slavery has ended, but players are sold to teams for an amount of money or, in american sports, exchanged for other players (the PLAYER is sold, not the HUMAN BEING). The Major League Soccer reference really got me confused, maybe you could explain it to me...

Really, Walter, i would really appreciate some feedback, so that no bad stuff remains unsolved, and that we can have a good wiki-relationship, as i want with all the (well-intended) users.

Again, i apologize for any incovenience (even tough you are not directly involved in the situation which resulted in this), keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Convinced of? I will gladly explain and/or clarify any doubts that you may have, just ask - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Another editor which does not wish to converse with me, even when i apologize and act friendly...You said you were not convinced of something, i offer to clear out any doubts you might have - as i also have - also asking what did you mean by that MLS reference, really did not understand it, and zero response? OK (yes i see by your edits you have been busy with stuff from the 2010 FIFA World Cup, but i still three or four minutes to send some minor feedback would be not be a great deal in your "wiki-schedule").

OK, rest assured, will not bother you anymore, happy life and editing, keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page. I'm not convinced that this user needs to be monitored. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yes Walter, i had already read that reply, thank you for that. Now, i understand what do you mean by "i am not convinced". Take care - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Fifa World Cup Squads

Hey Walter - are you certain of that? I've shifted the edit to the section later so at least it has less prominence... Gavinio (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage

The FIFA.com result is from the views of fans who simply vote for Honda because he is the most popular player from either squad. This page has expert views, but I am sorry for putting Morel's name, I meant to put Lucas Barrios as MoM. M-R-Schumacher (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Wow, that was a very pleasant surprise... thanks very much, glad you found it useful! Just hope that other editors agree that it's an improvement, as some are quite fond of wiki-syntax window-dressing. Time will tell, I guess. Knepflerle (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Minister-Präsident

Does Minister-Präsident mean Minister-President and Erste Minister mean Prime Minister or First Minister? Kingjeff (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

So, the head of a German state in english would be Minister-President? Kingjeff (talk) 02:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: FC Bayern Munich

Some time ago i used a similare squad list on Halmstads BK and it was changed by another user back to the original, i took it up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, where several other agreed on that the original was the better choice and i went along with the major opinion. If their is a new consensus that it will/should be used i would not mind using that style of squad list. --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 18:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary worship music

Are you aware of this discussion?--Bhuck (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No because I don't follow the German wikiepdia discussions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

When making Interwiki-Links to the German Wikipedia, it would be helpful if you would follow the German Wikipedia discussions.--Bhuck (talk) 06:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem to be disregarding my suggestion of following the German Wikipedia discussion, perhaps you could explain to me the difference between the articles here in :en 1) Contemporary Christian music and 2) Contemporary worship music. Should "Contemporary worship music" include Buddhist chants of recent years, or is it only Christian music, and if so, why is it not considered to be Christian music, but instead more generally worship music of whatever faith?--Bhuck (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The term is exclusive to a form of Christian liturgical music. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I asked about two terms and what the difference is, not about one term.--Bhuck (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

About billions and millions

In my edit on 2010 FIFA World Cup, I was thinking of WP:ENGVAR. I was not aware of the guideline WP:ORDINAL that you gave, that the short scale should be used, so your revert was justified (although not strictly necessary, because my edit still followed WP:ORDINAL). But in your edit summary, you mentioned an "accusation". I don't know who you think I was accusing of what, I was just trying to improve the article. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Civility Warning

Your comment on User talk:PeeJay2K3 was far from WP:CIVIL and rather unconstructive. You may be blocked if this continues. Toddst1 (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't meant to be uncivil. User talk:PeeJay2K3 was uncivil in his comment which was linked-to on his talk page. Also, he did not assume good faith when he deleted some content. I was simply pointing out the discussion about adding the thing he removed. I have attempted to apologize. If that's not sufficient, I can't do any more. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, while the comment was a little off-colour, I didn't take any offence in it. I wasn't really using the site that much for a couple of weeks at the time, so I missed the discussions that went on. Sorry. – PeeJay 23:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Meh. I owe you a beer. Should have been nicer. Good to have you back. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheers! – PeeJay 01:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

???

I saw your message on the talk. I don't see how my edits are unconstructive. All I did was to add Sneijder and Robben's name since they scored a goal! Gnayshkr3020 (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Too many edits on that article in a short time. It was a different edit. I have removed the comment. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

RE World Cup 2010

If you check the page history of the edit I reversed, USER John reasons for deleting my edit were 'nn'. I did not think this was a valid reason so I reversed his edit as vandalism. KP-TheSpectre (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

He used a lot of terms. I agree, the event was notable. had the goal been allowed it would have changed the outcome. It's a valid section but it's not fair to call another editor's changes "vandalism" when they're expressing an opinion. Had it gone on over several changes, I could see it though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup Final

All it needed was for the section to be expanded a bit. Anyway, "crap" is a matter of opinion, and it doesn't really matter how many sections the image traverses. – PeeJay 21:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The section needed to be expanded? The expanded material is general information about the ball and not about the specific match ball, but whatever. If it looks like..., smells like.., it is. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the section needed to be expanded. There was plenty of information that could be included, and I've not even added all of the things I thought of yet. After all, since the Jo'bulani is just a gold-coloured version of the Jabulani, all of the criticisms that have been levelled at the Jabulani could equally be levelled at the Jo'bulani. – PeeJay 21:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The only problem is it's not specific to the final match. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

In a way, you are right, but that is only because the Jo'bulani is simply a gold version of the Jabulani. Despite this, most of the information is still pertinent. Could you point out any specifics I have included that you think should be omitted? – PeeJay 23:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox log

You should look as Meisianiacal's (sp?) sandbox. Maybe you should do the equivalent to what he's doing. He seems downright like a disturbed personality; beware of him. Myself, I don't have time or patience for this kind of nonsense. Good luck with it. 204.174.87.223 (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not worried about User:Miesianiacal/Sandbox. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I would never keep a hit list like that. This is my policy: Matthew 18:21–22. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

December Moonlight

I can take the "lesson advertisement" off the home page. Why should I be careful resizing photos? I would be interested to know this. Thank you! Carolynorth (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I can take everything off the site that points back to my lessons if that would be the professional thing to do. I am not trying to advertise my lesson studio at all, not even in the slightest, by putting external links onto Wikipedia. I just was hoping to help get the word out about the site I am building - a site that I hope will help others to learn more about music. Thanks again! Carolynorth (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your construction criticism. I do appreciate it. I am going to go back onto the all the pages of my site and resize all the photos correctly, keeping the same dimension. I didn't realize it was noticeable; however, my site tools allow me to resize keeping the same dimensions, so I am going to do that to all of the photos. I'm also beginning to realize the importance of divorcing my studio information from the web site in general. I believe I will use another web address for the lessons and keep December Moonlight strictly a music information site. I will also be reading the Wikipedia guidelines a little more carefully, so that I can add external links to my site within the proper guidelines. Thanks again so much. I really appreciate all your help.Carolynorth (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have properly resized all the pics on the web site, and I'm grateful to you for that advice. You're right, it did make a huge difference. I have moved everything that has to do with my private music studio into the "Lesson Portal" section of the web site. Would you mind taking a few minutes to look around on the site and let me know if you think I might be able to now link some of my pages to Wikipedia pages? Any thoughts, advice, criticism, comments would be much appreciated. Carolynorth (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

thank you

i would just like to thank you for representing our faith And doing so much for the newsboys page, look for a lot from me to! Glman99 (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how much I've done, I usually just monitor for vandalism or addition of incorrect information. Glad to help where I can though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Calvary Chapel

Hi Walter, I just wanted to note that I did not actually change the Calvary Chapel section regarding quotes from Rick Ross, other than copying more of the articles that were already referenced. When I read the articles, there were sections that were copied out of the article but were taken out of context. In the overall "Criticisms" section, I only tried to make it more readable by making each of the criticisms separate sections, instead of making a huge run on sequence of paragraphs. Sliceofmiami (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I recognize that and I really shouldn't be blaming you. I haven't particularly liked the section. It's labelled "cult-like" and the accusation isn't really supported in the section nor is it appropriate for the group. The copyvio did have to be removed though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Double standards, much?

You certainly seem to be suffering from a severe case of double standards. Yes, we should leave articles as per the status quo until discussions are resolved, but according to you the only status quo is the one you created. Those articles were in the state I left them in for the ENTIRE tournament until some anon came along a couple of days ago. If anyone has ownership issues here, it's you. – PeeJay 18:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I assumed that they were in that state prior to your changes started. My mistake. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I think we both have a bad habit of jumping to conclusions, so I think now would be a good time to cease the curt attitude we both seem to adopt when speaking to each other, don't you? – PeeJay 22:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say sure, but that might be too curt. I think it's hard to communicate in summary comments. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Past members

I removed the "past members" in the infobox for Underoath a long time ago with the agreement that the listing was much to large. The band has been formed two times thus creating an ecessive array of listing. My decision to remove it was originally deemed adequate for the same reason why the reviews for the album infoboxes came to a consensus. Hope you understand. =) • GunMetal Angel 00:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A better use of your time

Instead of sending me message after message, and if it's bugging you that much, wouldn't it be better for you to take the 5 mins to update the Whitecaps roster yourself? I'm currently having this thing called "a life" which has to take precedent over "the internet" now and again. I will get to it when I have the chance, just as I said I would. I have not had the chance yet. --JonBroxton (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What's bugging me is that you lied. You said you'd maintain the rosters and that's why we didn't need a template. I said I would only maintain the template. You had the time to respond here. Perhaps a better use of your time would be to keep your word. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I lied. I intentionally went out of my way to mess with you, mislead you, and make you do something you didn't want to do for my own sick amusement. I get off on the fact that you now have to cope with a slightly out of wikipedia page which, rather than updating yourself, you will not touch and instead have want to have an argument with someone on the internet. --JonBroxton (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Irony. We don't much of that around here. Please just fix the mess you made Jon. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Walter, please don't harass other editors. No-one "lied" to you, despite your claims to the contrary. The template was removed because it does not meet the requirements of the style guide or Wikipedia's accepted practice for articles. What you are threatening to do - adding a non-conforming format - would simply be removed yet again, and would likely be seen as a disruptive move on your part. That would not help the sitation at all. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

None of your statements are correct. I am not harassing editors. I am asking you and JonBroxton to do what was agree-upon when you decided that the Whitecaps roster template was deleted. It was my only condition for not allowing it to stand any longer. The template was being used in two articles and that's the minimum requirements for a template. It is accepted practice. The fact that you two are not maintaining your word to keep the separate tables up-to-date is more disruptive than creating a template that would be used and maintained. Instead of using your time to spin your side of the story I suggest you stop do what you promised. This could have easily been settled in April when I said I would maintain the rosters if they only had to be kept in two locations. I know you think you're justified in your actions, but you're not. I said that the lists would fall out of sync and they certainly have. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Reece Brown

He's a member of the reserve team. – PeeJay 23:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And here is a link http://www.manutd.com/publish.sps?pagegid={061AD8F0-B618-4CC3-838C-A9AEA6B5217A}&teamid=437&section=playerProfile&bioid=93383 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.209.46 (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Open source?

Where does WP:EL say anything about open source? - MrOllie (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

OpenSource is implied in WP:LINKSPAM with the question: "Is the source a commercial one?". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That's on Wikipedia:Spam, and is in a section about source solicitations which would not seem to apply to links to implementations. Compare with Wikipedia:External links, which has 'Lists of links to manufacturers' in the section 'Links normally to be avoided'. - MrOllie (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Except FOSS isn't a manufacturer. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia talk:External links/Amendment which ended with support but no strong conclusion. FOSS has always had an exception. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Just raised it at Wikipedia talk:External links#Clarification on free open source external links. If we're confused about it, I'm sure others are as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup squads

I think FIFA made an error here. FIFA listed Vladimír Weiss with Manchester City, even though he was transferred in Jan 2010, played 13 games with Bolton (no league games with Manchester City), and was last with Bolton when the WC started. His FIFA profile 'Club History' also showed Weiss was last with Bolton:

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/players/player=313909/profile.html

Played last club game with Bolton:

http://www.footbalistic.com/players/2090/vladimir_weiss

Other players on transfers are listed with the transfer team, not the original team. For example Robinho (and many others):

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/players/player=194815/profile.html

If 'Club' is last club played for, it should be Bolton.

Zzsignup (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Might be better discussed on the article's talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Crystal

Hey, Walter, ya know what they say about people who assume things? But, I must admit that I assumed that it was a good link. I should have checked it first to make sure. But, you shouldn't accuse people of things like that. Musdan77 (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What I wrote was How can you use a reference that's 404? This makes me wonder if you actually accessed it or assumed the information was there. I didn't accuse you of anything. Insinuation is not an accusation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

And the issue was you offered-up her middle name so either you knew it or you looked at the link. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

1) You make it sound like an insinuation is better than an accusation. They're both wrong—especially if you're a Christian. You should know better. 2) What I did was: went to her website and found out her middle name, then I saw that a link was already in the article, so I just it—instead of making another one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musdan77 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're offended but you should have checked the reference. The fact that you didn't check the reference and used it to reference a new fact was incorrect procedure. Please be careful in the future. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I will try. And you do the same. Be careful how you talk to people. Not just the words you use, but also use humility (Philippians 2:3). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musdan77 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

LN

My posts are not vandalism, as I have stated previously. Please do as I have suggested and read the page on vandalism that you, yourself have linked to for further clarification. I find it objectionable that you continually refer to my edits as vandalism when they clearly are not, and I kindly ask you to stop doing this, and also stop threatening me with banning for articulating the wording of a sentence differently from you. None of the information I have contributed is factually incorrect. In fact, I have not changed any of the information in the statements presented, but have only worded the sentence in a way that I feel is better and more constructive.

That people have stated opinions is fine, but it does not make their claims factual. WP:V merely verifies that the statements can be atributed, not that the statements themselves are factual. "Some have described..." is clearly factually accurate - the alternative would be "All have described..." which is obviously not the case. Additionally, it seems important to you for a negative statement be the final one of the paragraph. In what way does that wording improve the article? By writing the sentence as I have the article is not harmed in any way, and is in fact improved. The facts are still there for people to read - none were removed. They should at least be presented in a manner that is more readable.--64.121.41.204 (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding edit to Michaelle Jean

You added a "citation needed" comment to my edit and commented on my neutrality regarding the edit. First, thank you for the guidance, as I am new to to editing wiki pages. Also, you are right, as a vegetarian/vegan I am probably biased against her stance regarding seal hunting. I tried my best to keep my observations regarding the incident factual and accurate, but may have gotten carried away by my personal views. For future edits , I will try to be as unbiased as possible and will add citations where I have them. Thanks again. AlexBehrman (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC).

Champions league tables

I really don't have anything against template you sent me. But if you look in the past seasons format I already put was used all the times. So I think it is more important that all the seasons have coherent look although personally I prefer using templates over wikitables. Nightfall87 (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Madrid #19

Özil will be wearing 19 because Garay will be temporary deactivated; only 25 players are allowed on the roster. Before the transfer window closes, Madrid should been at 25 players. [1] The Madrid site does not look as if it will be valuable as a source this season; its info are not updated frequently and it is slow if at all. Raul17 (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Since when is a newspaper a fansite? You guys do what you want. Garay is out for at least three months. Madrid is one player over the roster limit and Özil can not wear 26. If you think the source is unreliabl, fine. Say that. But you can not rely on the team site when Carvalho is still listed with no number!! Raul17 (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's wait until match-time. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Gametime roster

Madrid site roster

One of the reasons why the official site is not always the best source for infomation. Both are from the team site, yet the official roster has not changed or been updated yet. Again. I try to deal with facts not rumors and I do not read fansites. Now I see why Vasco and others get annoyed with you. You have to tone it down a notch. Raul17 (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Özil's number

Walter, the Madrid site still has Özil wearing 26 eventhough he wore 19 in the first match. Does this mean that Madrid's wikipage has to revert Özil's number back to 26? Raul17 (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I made no change as I understand that the source is bad. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

edit error at "Baptism"

My apology for inadvertent "save" instead of "preview"—the material was not yet readied for inclusion. Re: "essay", the necessary contrasts are indeed extensive, comprised almost entirely of substantiating quotations of the witnesses; but a true essay would have been a summary in detail of the material linked at end of footnote and could have easily been five times the length, discussing each quoted source in detail. It is not a neutral viewpoint to set forth a single hypothetical position in this article "Baptism" that even now is still disputed (as per the linked articles and their sources ref. current scholarly opinion), and thus the presentation of a current (continued) opposing view is necessary, and should be presented, for the information of the reader, and for a more balanced non-slanted presentation. It is placed in footnote to not disturb the original writer's argument, and to connote an alternate position that can legitimately be considered. The principles of Wikipedia insist on a neutral viewpoint. The position of the author of this paragraph section on the (unproven) primacy of the gospel of Mark is not neutral. Hermitstudy (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Internal links in footnotes

The footnotes to the article "Baptism" are full of internal links to articles in Wikipedia. (Many articles have them. The linked articles provide further external sources.) You have not apparently chosen to hit "undo" for any of those. Your particular reversion of the recent footnote in the article "Baptism" appears to be vandalism, and additionally it appears to be an attempt to keep information from the reader. This is serious. Hermitstudy (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The articles linked are not the primary source of the historical information on the position of early Christianity re: primacy of the gospel of Matthew, but are resources immediately accessible to the reader which offer more extended discussions of the primary sources, for which references to sources outside of Wikipedia are provided, and external links have been made to primary materials being used by the authors of those articles, to support those authors' arguments (or discussions, if you prefer, or presentations) in the articles. It is a kind of shorthand reference tool extensively used by researchers and authors in their works and in professional journals, citing the research of another who cites another researcher who cites a discussed source who quotes another (historical) witness. Primary example: Almost all of the linked names in the footnotes to "Baptism" are internal links to Wikipedia articles providing accessible information and biographies which are derived from sources outside of Wikipedia which quote other sources and cite additional materials supporting statements made about the individuals named. Reading about the content of a cited author's works is not the same as actually reading the works themselves. The consistency you demand would instead require the author(s) of those footnotes to directly cite the (sometimes extensive listing of) external resources, which those linked Wikipedia articles courteously provide. The "Baptism" article's footnote authors have not been held by you to that task, and they have done with the names (and other materials), which they accessed for the reader by internal links useful to them, what I did with the quotations and subjects of discussion to which I adverted in the original extensive footnote. It would seem that if they did not violate the WP:CIRCULAR by doing so, then I too did not violate it. This may be evidence of a personal bias on your part which militates against the possibility of neutrality, to which you have already graciously admitted, to others, above. Hermitstudy (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oezil, is officially listed as number 23, w

while the official team site may not always be the most accurate it has always been updated to reflect the actual squad numbers by the end of the transfer deadline as is required by Fifa. if you check the spanish version of the real madrid website, which offcourse is the main website being a spanish team, you will see that ozil is infact now number 23. i'd appreciate it if you read the wiki rules and realised that this site is supposed to be based on facts and therefore official team rosters from official team websites are more accurate than a picture from a match nearly a week ago. http://www.realmadrid.com/cs/Satellite/es/1193040475259/Plantilla/1193040475259.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishpacerfan (talk • contribs) 14:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please check the debate on the club talk page instead of re-discussing it on the player pages and editors' talk pages. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Madrid site (English vs Spanish)

I know this this is an English language wiki, but there will be times when the Spanish version will be sited by editors as a reference source because the English lacks the information. I prefer the Spanish-language site because it is more accurate. Last season, you would have sworn that Madrid only has Castilla has a reserve/youth team because the English site only covered Castilla and until last April, when the Juvenil A team when it qualified for the Copa de Campeones and Copa del Rey trying to win a triple!

Last season. I was in two possible revert/edit wars: Sergio Ramos being named as the fourth captain and Antonio Adán being assigned #25 for the Champions League matches. Only the Spanish version had any information about Sergio Ramos being named as a vice-captain. (By the way, I think that Diarra and Marcelo are the other vice-captains this season. Based on senority, Diarra is third and Gago, Higuaín and Marcelo are tied for fourth place with Marcelo wearing the captain's band while all three of those players were on the field.) The Adán info was later supported by the updated English site and was later rendered useless when both versions included him on the first team roster with #26 (which is incorrect by Rfef rules). I would also like to add that Ricardo Carvalho was assigned #2 by the Spanish site while the English version had him unassigned until its recent update. Thank you. Raul17 (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Narnia

I reverted your changes to The Chronicles of Narnia. The citation for 47 languages is located in The Series with the rest of the citations for those numbers. LloydSommerer (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate that you are just trying to keep the article reliable, we are not talking about some crackpot here. GoodKnight, in addition to being a respected authority on The Inklings, has compiled an extensive and verifiable list of translations. If this were in anyway controversial, then I would completely agree with your stance. But we are talking about self publishing a list of verifiable facts. LloydSommerer (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22GoodKnight%22%20narnia&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=sp#q=%22GoodKnight%22+narnia&hl=en&tbs=bks:1&ei=2yGGTKD-K4u4sQO994H3Bw&start=0&sa=N&fp=ac3b1f8641813cbe

Tim Be Told

Hi, it looks like you undid some of my edits to the page for Tim Be Told. After reviewing them, you falsely mis-labled them as "vandalism", and I don't appreciate that. It appeared that the tag was asking for verification, so I verified a couple of sources. Also, you obviously didn't review all of the edits. On top of "verifying sources", I removed "source needed" tags for information that was already sourced, as well as corrected invalid URLs.

I don't want to sound insulting, but I assume you looked at one edit, and removed everything. What you did was undo 100%, legitimate work. If you had an issue, I believe that the correct protocol is to inquire on the Talk Page, rather than undo edits and mislabel them as "vandalism". If you don't have any objection, I will redo what you arguably shouldn't have undone. I apologize if I sound rude, but I spent quite a while working on the verification, and it appears that someone carelessly discarded the work as if it was worthless. Maktesh (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

it as they were

Well these are the edits. You've got unexplained removal of maintenance templates, introduction of random text, vis: multiple instances of QuickiWiki Look Up, etc. What would you call it?

I'm not sure how familiar you are with errors, but whenever I make an edit, that text appears on a page. Not quite sure how to fix it, but if that's the case, any edits I make are "vandalism". If you read the comments, I explained my edits. I was personally verifying the sources in question, as well as removing "reference request" templates where the information was alread there. If I am unable to help verify those sources, how then will they be verified? I assumed that what was being asked was for someone to see if the sources given were reliable. You'll also notice that I corrected a few URLs that had some issues. Maktesh (talk)

Don't hit Save page. Every edit you make has QuickiWiki Look Up in it. You must know how that's happening. At the very least you can change browsers if it's a plugin. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding what you said on my page, I removed those templates because I verified the sources. The template was questioning as to whether or not the reference was a reliable source or not, so I personally checked some of them out, and was able to verify them. Are only administrators allowed to do so? Maktesh (talk)

I uninstalled a wiki-editing plugin. I think it fixed the problem. Also, I've been editing Wikis for quite some time. I always preview, but it doesn't show up until "save" is clicked. Maktesh (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Twitter

Hey there friend. I saw that you made an edit summary stating "Twitter may be used as a source when it is a primary source about the subject." I'm puzzled. WP:TWITTER specifically states to the contrary, that tweets are not acceptable. Precedence in various ANI discussions and whatnot have stated that social networking sites, MS, FB, Twitter, etc. are not to be used, since anybody can sign on, create an account, and claim that they are that specific person or celebrity making the posts. Heck, I've been impersonated once on MS and twice on Twitter. So, what are your thoughts here? Why do you think they are acceptable? Cindamuse (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What I have read and still read is "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Cross-reference with WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.". Then you understand that Twitter may be used as a source when the source is the primary subject. "We are releasing our new album, Fallen Angel, on October 31" would be acceptable while "Our friends over at Spork told us that they are releasing their new album, Fallen Angel, on October 31" would not be.

Scrum Master

He doesn't "help fix problems", he "facilitates the resolution of impediments"? I read your explanation of your revert, I'm guessing from that (and your name) that English isn't your first language? Facilitate = help. Resolve = fix. Impediment = road block = problem. Or are you one of those Dilbert-boss types that just loves to use big words? In that case, I cannot help you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjsavage (talk • contribs) 19:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

if Resolve = Fix then why do they have two different entries in the dictionary. Their etymology are not at issue. Fix implies that the person had to implement some sort of repair where as resolve doesn't carry that contextual weight. And similarly Facilitate does not mean help. I will concede that for someone unfamiliar with the subtleties of the English language that impediment, road block, and problem could all seem identical, but they're not. So if you want a language in my native tongue, feel free to ask instead of assuming. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the role of the scrum master is not to fix broken chairs. The scrum master is there to find ways to keep a project going when something happens that stops it. In other words, he "facilitates the resolution of impediments". But dude, that's 14 syllables. To say that he "helps fix problems" gets the exact same idea across in 4 syllables. The only difference is that one sounds like it was written by a pretentious show-off trying to impress everyone with fancy words, and the other sounds like the writer was trying for clarity and simplicity. I'm surrounded by pretentious and fancy every day, and it drives me nuts. I was just trying to make the world a little bit clearer and simpler. You know, better. And ok, I'll go ahead and ask: what is your native language? And what does "a language in my native tongue" mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjsavage (talk • contribs) 16:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Blaze (Christian rapper)

I'm afraid the IP is right. WP:CSD states: The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. So your AIV report isn't valid; stop edit warring (I'll tell the IP too) and discuss, please. Airplaneman ✈ 22:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Your edit here actually runs contrary to the official style, as indicated in the Canada Gazette and the Governor General's website. Is there some contradicting Wikipedia policy? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/081201_gg_dion_en.pdf goes contrary to your assertion. I think it's optional and as such we should maintain correct Wikipedia capitalization. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I'm sorry! I must be developing some kind of dyslexia as I thought, when looking at the diff of your edit, that you'd added capital "t"s to the "the"s. No, what you did was right. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've done the same on many occasions myself so i completely understand. WP:MOS see Use of "The" mid-sentence. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

I removed your recent request (diff) for a third opinion because, while WP:3O generally limits itself to disputes between two users, that issue involves one user who has edit-warred with several other editors and is currently blocked 24 hours for it. The user has repeated blanked his/her user talk page since May 2008, so it's likely that additional messages may be blanked as well. If you seek more feedback from the wider editing community, or a more radical solution such as a longer block, you could try one of the other dispute resolution processes such as Requests for comment/User conduct. Good luck. – Athaenara ✉ 08:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. When I placed the request, the dispute was just between me and another editor. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Civility

I'm sorry about my snide comment following your revert. However, if you're concerned about civility, Walter, you may want to follow your own advice; whatever you intended, "take the stick and walk away from the dead horse.." reads as a euphemistic way of accusing someone of being pointlessly obstinate. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Misquoted WP:STICK. I should have just referenced it instead. What should have written was "Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You've missed my point. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. You missed mine. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't miss your point at all. You were insinuating that I was being uncivil by incorrectly referencing WP:STICK when you were beating a dead horse. I suppose that if you were making the point that you were not oblivious to it, yes I missed that point. If it was that I was being uncivil by pointing it out, I beg to differ. I was being rather civil. Consider all of the ways that this point could have been made and consider how I could have been more civil. Feel free to list them, on your own talk page.

I would also like to point out that you frequently refuse to accept it when others actually improve, or at least attempt to improve, the language of articles you watch. I wasn't making that latter point before, but I am now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that you are still missing my point: by accusing me of beating a dead horse, you assumed that your preferred version of the sentence was inarguably the superior one and therefore I was continuing a done debate only out of blind stubbornness. It was wholly presumptuous and mildly insulting. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No M. This is now a dead horse. Two editors recognized that the grammar was better and you said "restore long-standing and in-line w/ other GG articles" and "leave what was fine and long-standing". It wasn't fine. It was awkward. It doesn't matter how long the bad grammar was in the article, the improvement is obvious. You never said it wasn't better just your insistence on having the GG articles be consistent. If you want consistency, change the other bad phrases to match the good one not the good one to match the bad. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Either sentence structure is acceptable. When there's no problem with the original, as partly evidenced by its long existence in the lead of an often edited article, there's no reason to change it other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Further, when an edit is immediately disputed, WP:BRD puts the onus on those who want the change to leave the original alone and find a consensus to make their desired change. Do you feel that none of that applies to you? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The current sentence structure is acceptable to people living in the 21st century. The previous sentence structure would have made Shakespeare happy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

And there you go again being intentionally provocative. Either sentence structure is acceptable. And, once more: do you feel that WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:BRD don't apply to you? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Alain Rochat

My mistake. I'd forgotten that Vancouver was an exception with the team keeping the history etc. Since Rochat will never play in the USL for VWFC, and will play in MLS in 2011, wouldn't it make sense to show him on the current VWFC MLS page rather than the USL one? I guess if the pages are merged it won't make musch difference... just wondered what your thoughts on the matter were. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

USSF D2, but I know what you mean. Actually, I think the MLS page should be merged into the USSF D2/USL one for reasons exactly like this. The USSF D2 club signed him and he will be playing for the MLS club. To solve the problem, why not put him in both locations? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That may be problematic since the MLS franchise doesn't currently have any signed players as their signings will all be handled by the MLS. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should move this discussion to talk:Vancouver Whitecaps FC‎?--Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks so much for the barnstar! Yworo (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No thanks required. You deserve it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Choir and The Choir (disambiguation)

How do these look to you now? Even piped: The Choir. If you don't care for it, blank User:Walter Görlitz/monobook.js and User:Walter Görlitz/monobook.css. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, do you use AWB? bd2412 T 03:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't use AWB and The Choir is still highlighted in yellow as it is here. So I don't understand your point even more now. It sounds like you're afraid of change. "We've always done it this way and we don't need to change. Everyone else can do it the way we want them to even though it doesn't make any sense.". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we've only started doing it this way in the past few months, after a great deal of trial and error. With close to a million incorrect links to fix, the most effective way to do it is with a program like AWB that loads up all links to a particular page. By excluding the tens of thousands of intentional links from this process, we save enough time that we are actually finally getting ahead of the curve. As long as there are disambiguation pages, there will be errant links to them, and we will need some means to avoid the distraction of those intentional links. Just look at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/The Daily Disambig. In just the past year, we've reduced disambig links from 1.3 million to just over 850,000. This is working. bd2412 T 04:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Finally the answer I've been looking for! Since AWB loads the links, it could be told to do so from a category or template that is included on the page instead of adding adding all these empty redirect disambiguation pages. It's just as much work as creating those redirect pages and far less obtrusive. I don't know why you're using such a cumbersome method that imposes on others. I'm sure somebody had a reason somewhere for this method, and "if it gets the job done"... . I know that Wikipedia isn't running out of space, but y'all should have found a way that didn't step on the toes of others. I'm sure that there will be many more days like today when someone will get annoyed and "fight back", wasting more of your time. But as long as you're prepared for that, more power to you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

AWB is hardly the only route of entry for this issue. Let's walk through a typical example. On Pages that link to "The Choir", there are six current links (problem pages typically have ten times as many links, and are constantly accreting new links). All of these are, of course, erroneous, but one of them is intentional and is flagged as intentional, while another is intentional and not flagged as intentional. Can you tell which is which? bd2412 T 04:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No because I've turned the link colouring off, but I see that The Choir (disambiguation) is a redirect page without the colouring. Your tool could just as easily use a template or a category. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Even without the coloring you should still be able to tell, since it is based on the arrangement of incoming links on the page. The Choir (EP) intentionally links to The Choir, but a person trying to fix those links would not know it unless it was intentionally redirected like Choir (disambiguation) already does. For a page like John Smith, if the dozens of intentional incoming links did not redirect through John Smith (disambiguation), people trying to fix incorrect links would waste hours checking pages containing intentional links that could not be fixed. If you think this can be resolved with a template or a category, please demonstrate how. bd2412 T 05:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

But with the colouring turned-on, The Choir also lights-up for me. And you could make any page light-up in any colour you wanted with templates and categories. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please be specific. How would a template or category enable a disambiguator looking at the list of pages that link to The Choir to know that the link contained in The Choir (EP) is intentional, and need not be checked? bd2412 T 05:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

AWB would look at the category list and cross-reference all articles listed in the What links here page. No need for changing the page name to include (disambiguation) in a new page, the information is right there. When a page is checked a template could be added to indicate whatever information you want. It could even be made to flag a disambiguators list when the page is moved (thus invalidating the previous check). A bot could patrol pages of concern and if ambiguous links are added, or even any links are added or changed, another list could be added. Let the computers do the work, not your eyes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This would require the addition of a new template or category to every single page containing an intentional disambig link, and would be of no use to disambiguators who are working off the "what links here" lists themselves. Disambiguation must almost always be done by human eyes anyway, because a program can not tell, for example, whether a person linking to Mercury meant to link to Mercury (planet) or Mercury (element) or Mercury (god), or whether they actually meant to link to the disambig page itself. bd2412 T 05:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The bot could add and the What links here page could be coloured based on those templates. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

SPI

What happened with the SPI? Cindamuse (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Formatting

FYI, your post at the MoS popped up on my watchlist; I've had to refactor the post as we cannot interweave comments and replies in that manner. (It was very difficult to read.) None of the text was changed, and I have tested to make sure that the numbering was retained as well. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Your convenience is not my concern, however when you change someone else's comments, you step over the line. I wanted it that way so I didn't have to number my responses to match his. Please put it back. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, we can and should interweave comments. I've seen it done before and the last time I did it you also changed it without showing me a policy. I think it's a personal preference, but if there's a policy that's fine, show me and I'll try to get it changed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the comments were not changed in any way, and the refactoring serves to ensure that the original post is readable. Interweaving is only appropriate in the case of a long comment (which the original is not) and with proper attribution. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

So there's no policy and it's merely your personal preference that made this change to someone else's comments. Anyone who has been around the Internet since before the 90s and has used text-only email programs knows how to read that kind of message formatting. Please put it back now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Newsboys

Please note that I redirected several articles for members of this band for failing WP:GNG and/or WP:MUSIC. Being a member of a notable band does not make the indiviudal notable, and the lack of reliable sources also means the articles fail WP:GNG. Without addressing these concerns, the articles should not be restored. Being a member of two notable bands (ie, bands with wiki articles) may satisfy WP:MUSIC, but without reliable sources such articles would still fail GNG and so should remain a redirect. Regards, Nouse4aname (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

then feel free to nominate for deletion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to go through an AfD. WP:MUSIC is quite clear that non-notable persons should redirect to the relevant band. Further, a single source is not "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". Nouse4aname (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes the need is there because having sat for a long time this sort of arbitrary behaviour is capricious.

In your AFD you could suggest that it would better to have the existing articles redirect back to the band article. You acted without warning or discussion and you feel justified. I may be able provide additional sources when I am at home but as it is I have a job and I will not be able to address you demands until that time. So do what you want since you have policy on your side. However the AFD would permit editors to provide the required sources. I would like to remind you that there wasn't even a tag that there were no sources on any of the articles which, considering their age, should be the first step.

What many policy-imposers like you seem to forget is that each album is a WP:V source and the material about the artist is often contained it which then meets WP:GNG (the material is not self-published but published by RIAA member companies). Adding references to those albums that simply point back to the album is ridiculous. Their appearance on multiple albums. As such they marginally meet WP:BAND 5., 6., and 7. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The albums are that of the band, and not the individual members and thus establish notability for the band and not the individuals. Nowhere on wikipedia does it suggest that recording an album establishes individual notability for band members (and why should it?). The lack of unreferenced tags does not stop a non notable, unreferenced article from being redirected as per WP:MUSIC and is by no means a prerequisite of establishing a redirect. The fact that wikipedia demands reliably sourced articles is sufficient enough motive for such sources to be added - the consequence of not doing so is a page being redirected. Redirecting an article for failing WP:MUSIC does not require discussion or warning. The warning is that WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG need to be satisifed in order for an article to remain. Failure to satisfy such notability requirements results in articles being appropriately redirected. If you have access to sources that establish notability for the members that is not reliant upon their membership of the band, then great. If these sources only discuss the various members in the context of the band, then they do not establish individual notability. Nouse4aname (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Further, you seem to confuse the notability of the band with notability of the members. The band released the albums, and thus it is the band that gains notability from them - notability is not inherited, and thus the band members are not inherently notable through having released albums as part of a notable band. Criteri 6 refers again to a band gaining notability if two of its members are individually notable. Again, the band satisfies criteria 7 but the individual members do not. Nouse4aname (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I understood before this conversation began. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Arsenal, and WP:ELNO

Hello Walter,

I notice that you removed the external link that I added to the Arsenal wikipedia page.

I am a new contributor and I thought in good faith that the information linked to would be of interest to users of this page, not available anywhere else on the web, and too extensive to include within the Arsenal page.

I had a look at the WP-ELNO link that you referenced as the reason for removing my amendment but I would really appreciate if you could tell me which of the guidelines my edit violated. I am sorry if this is obvious to you - as I say I am new so may have done something that is not acceptable through ignorance - so please educate me if this is the case !!!!

If it is not correct, is there an alternative way you would recommend for me to make the information available to Arsenal fans.

Thanks

Tim Richardson

Tim8008 (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELNO. Your site appears to be a blogs, personal web page, or most fansite. That's against item 11. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying promptly, Walter.

And thanks for putting on a subject header - I apologise for not doing that myself in the first place.

I chose to put a link directly to the Arsenal page within the site and so I can see how it could have seemed like a fansite. The home page www.free.elements.com shows the full scope of the site

I had a look at the definition of a fansite and I think that the information provided is too wide to fit that description. (it's definitely not a blog or personal web page).

The purpose of the site is to provide detailed information on goals scorers in the 4 major European leagues from their inception to present time. I don't know if it is of relevance but the site is 5 1/2 years old and gets consulted by an average of a bit over 400 unique users per day.

I'd like to put the edit back in but I don't want to get into a squabble so I'd like to know if you think it's alright for me to do that, having looked over the site.

Please let me know your view.

Thanks,

Tim

Tim8008 (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the front page as well. It looked to me like a conglomeration of information either by a single individual (personal web page) or by a small group (an open wiki or fan site). You don't have to rest on my word though. Look at the discussion page associated with WP:ELNO and create a new section and ask for a ruling from those who care about such things. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Walter, this website can in no way be regarded as a reliable source. As such it falls foul of our external links policy and am in the process of reverting all these link additions. _wjemather^bigissue 20:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: My opinion is that a web site made by an industrious individual over five and half years is a noble endeavour, but doesn't change the fact that it's probably still just a hobby site. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite. An awful lot of time and effort goes into this kind of data acquisition, but unfortunately it cannot be considered anything but, as you say, a hobby site. _wjemather^bigissue 20:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Userboxes

Just in case I made a couple of userboxes that might interest you: User:Koavf/Userboxes/Mennonite and User:Koavf/Userboxes/Anabaptist. If not, then please ignore this message. If you'd like to respond, please do so on my talk. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Immersion baptism

I was thinking of making a general Request for Comment on Swampyank's reversal but I see that, while you undid Tb's later change, you seemed to accept Swampyank's edit. Do you? Or did it escape your notice? Esoglou (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

it escaped my notice. The RfC would probably be a good idea. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You might be more capable than I of phrasing the RfC. Is there some hope that you might do it? Esoglou (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I sir, am not a diplomat. You are more capable in this area. I fear that mine would introduce greater POV than is required. If you still feel that I would be a a good choice, I will endeavour to do my best. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that I am a better diplomat. I will not insist. However, I don't have time just now and probably will not until tomorrow. So, if you do decide to do something, I will be happy. Esoglou (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)