User talk:Walter Görlitz: Difference between revisions

Hey, something similar happened at ASC San Diego related to the move of this page. I'm still trying to figure out what precisely is going on with this merger, but thought I would let you know. Jay eyem (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:24.78.140.235

I have blocked the IP editor for their legal threats, but your behavior in that conversation was inappropriate and way too aggressive. Nothing useful will come from discussing where an IP address geolocates to. Do not get into pointless back and forth exchanges with disruptive editors. You know where to file reports. Cullen328 (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I agree, and I'm sorry. I did what is common—referring to an anon by their location—and did so in what I thought was a whimsical fashion on the anon's talk page, but then it digressed. I will avoid doing so in the future. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Anon" is not a synonym for an IP editor. A registered user who studiously avoids disclosing any personally identifying information is clearly much more anonymous than a garden variety IP editor. Please amend your common practice. Cullen328 (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I usually refer to them as anons, but I have seen them referred to by their location. I was just trying to be social, but not only was it not appreciated, it got out of hand. Thank you for the advice and taking the time to explain. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not refer to IP editors as "anons" and do not mention their geolocation data, which may or may not be accurate, but is utterly irrelevant in conversations with IP editors. If you want to be "whimsical" as you said at User talk: Drmies, then edit the plot summary of an article about Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny, Woody the Woodpecker, The Flintstones, or some other whimsical show business topic. Do not try to be "whimsical" in your interactions with editors you are in a dispute with. That debating tactic never ends well, and you should know that very well. Cullen328 (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps whimsical was the wrong word then. I was trying to speak to the editor as a human using shared places. If you would prefer me not to write to editors in an effort to alleviate hostilities and create a raptor with them, I am not sure how to edit to please you. I also see no problem with writing about an anonymous editor as an anon, but clearly you do, so that may need a fuller discussion at the Village Pump. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you meant "rapport " in the sense of a personal connection rather than "raptor" as in a bird of prey. If so, your efforts were unsuccessful because they were inept and perceived (reasonably) as insulting. You are, of course, free to argue at the Village Pump (or elsewhere) that "anon" is an acceptable moniker for an IP editor who is clearly less anonymous than a registered editor who takes a modicum of precautions to protect anonymity. Of course, you will be expected to justify telling the specific editor in question to take a walk on specific frozen rivers based on their geolocation data, and I expect that may be a difficult conversation for you. The choice is yours. 07:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I made a typo. No, as someone who was raised in Winnipeg, it is not uncommon for youth (and others) to walk on these rivers in January. The point was to ask for the editor to cool off, They have a year to do that. The unfortunate consequence of that action was perceived as an outing of the editor's locations. Clearly that was a wrong perception since there are warnings for every editor who chooses to edit without an account that their IP is exposed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Drm310

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music § Colin Larkin references. We could really use an experienced editor with this matter, and I hope you're able to provide some input. Thanks. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dale MacKay

You actually explained something in an edit summary that's more than just linking to whatever. Was that so hard? That's what you should do in instances such as this. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But you can see how one could mix them up. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You would not be the first to confuse WP:REPEATLINK with WP:OVERLINK. I will not be changing my process. The links are there and it is the responsibility of the editor to follow the link to the page to determine why. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Editing Help

Thank you for your kind words and welcome message, I just wanted to say I appreciate you taking the time to share what will work best for my editing skills instead of berating me like the other editor did. If you can provide any other feedback as I continue my editing journey, I would like that. Wtfsteph (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our latest disagreement aside:

Nobody views that page. It would not be likely to gain a fair consensus there. I will take it to the WikiProject instead. dannymusiceditor ^oops 16:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting scores in games

I was doing a bit of copyediting on the Mario Gómez article and I noticed the method of reporting scores in games was not consistent. The section in the loan to Beşiktaş uses an – between scores (5–1 win), while the International section does not (2–3 loss). Is either method preferred, or are both acceptable? Perfect4th (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Perfect4th: I believe that it is regional. For me, saying win, victory, etc. as opposed to defeat loss is the key to understanding the situation. I would always place the larger score first. I would follow-up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm used to seeing scores with the home team's total reported first, but both could make sense. Is it better to use any particular kind of dash or hyphen with it as well? Perfect4th (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, it's a regional preference. The en-dash is used for scores. I am used to seeing colons. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now. Might it be similar to the {{British English}} versus {{American English}} issue? Perfect4th (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease

Hello Walt Please stop immediately. Your changes are unwarranted and rather inaccurate. I will be force to report you in the event you make these unnecessary changes again.

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 ::: Exactly, it's a regional preference. The en-dash is used for scores. I am used to seeing colons. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz#top|talk]]) 18:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 ::::Oh, I see now. Might it be similar to the <nowiki>{{British English}} versus {{American English}}</nowiki> issue? [[User:Perfect4th|Perfect4th]] ([[User talk:Perfect4th|talk]]) 20:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
+== Please cease ==
+Hello Walt Please stop immediately. Your changes are unwarranted and rather inaccurate. I will be force to report you in the event you make these unnecessary changes again.